>
 |
| Women are totally into this shit. |
Sperm: It’s What Women Crave. At least according to a post today on What Men Are Saying About Women. So where does that leave lesbians? Up shit creek without a paddle, or, more precisely, up the vagina without a flagellum:
The MRA who posted it, who quite conveniently goes by the name of MRA, is basing his highly scientific conclusion on a weird study from a number of years back which found that women who had unprotected spermy sex with men were happier than women whose partners used condoms; apparently semen is a kind of magic happy juice. Never mind that according to his logic, men who wear condoms should also be considered “sad, pathetic imitators of the real thing” as well.
>"Here's an male Australian vampire murder:http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/father-guilty-of-vampire-site-murder-of-carly-ryan/story-e6frf7kx-1225822274002"Err, the murder they carried out on Carly Ryan did not contain any vampiric-related themes whatsoever."An 'internet construct' was used to lure Miss Ryan to a final meeting at Port Elliot in February 2007.There, the father bashed Miss Ryan about the head, pushed her face into the sand and threw her into the water to drown.Her body was found by passersby at Horseshoe Bay the next morning."A vampiric murder involves the perpetrator drinking their victim's blood because they think they are a vampire. The perpetrators of Carly Ryan's murder did nothing of the sort. The only reason they killed her was because she rejected them. To say this is a "vampire murder" is fucking stupid.The only reference to vampirism was of the site they used to meet Carly. If they truly thought they were vampires then they would have performed vampiric acts on the victim.You fail, Futrelle.
>Futrelle, go read this article:http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/carly-ryan-a-loving-girl-who-fell-prey-to-an-online-predator/story-e6frea83-1225822697469
>Futrelle,The case you're citing is not a vampiric murder. I detailed why it's not a vampiric murder at least twice now. On both occasions you deleted my post. What's the matter, afraid of being shown up, again?
>David Futrelle does not know the definition of a vampire murder. He thinks that a case involving a paedophile luring and bashing a 15yo girl's head and drowing he in a waterway is vampiric. Fucking loon.
>I bow to your superior judgement on vampire murders, which make up about one-one millionth of the total number of murders in the world.
>I think anonymous homophobe just proved my point about MRAs hating lesbians. On the domestic abuse issue, the very study he cites is being compared to data procured using different methodology and studing a different age range (26 vs 40, different scales for measuring what counts as domestic abuse) and, the low number of subjects(92)and lack of control group alone make the study highly prone to error. It is quite possible that this is from a sampling flaw with the study itself, or that using the same measuring scale would put opposite sex abuse as happening at different rates than the other (rare) studies on heterosexuals. The descriptions of the study sample size, composition, and methodology were all available at the link he posted, funny how he didn't bother to read them… However, even if this study were accurate for Hong Kong, it would show that Hong Kong is actually statistically different than the US, the UK, and Australia. Australia, anon. homophobe's claimed homeland, shows that only two percent of all domestic violence against women is committed by same sex partners, a number which would make it roughly proportionate (assuming same sex dating women compose roughly two percent of the population of Australia). In the UK, only one percent of domestic abuse cases with a female victim involved a female perpetrator http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors191.pdf. In the US, 22% of hetero women were found to be victims in government studies (http://www.cdc.gov/Features/IntimatePartnerViolence/) as compared to 10% of lesbians and 15% of gay men http://new.abanet.org/domesticviolence/Pages/Statistics.aspx#same-sex. And, once again, one murder does not prove that this is typical. Unusual killings are more likely newsworthy. Two examples hardly shows a widespread cultural pattern. I'm not Australian (I'm from the US), so I don't know Australian law and statistics as well as the US, but I could not find that the Australian government tracks sexuality data in regards to homocides. However, they do track the sex of offenders, and males commit homocide at higher rates than females http://www.aic.gov.au/en/statistics/homicide/offenders.aspx suggesting that murder in Australia is not primarily commited by lesbians. Some actual understanding of science and some sturdy data is recommended before you start making homophobic claims about how lesbians are violent.
>"However, they do track the sex of offenders, and males commit homocide at higher rates than females"Stop using manipulative language. The data only reflects known murders and actual convictions of suspected murderers. It does not take into consideration that roughly half of all murders are unsolved. Nor does it acknowledge the fact that female suspects are more likely to be acquitted. I notice you failed to cite this fact from the Australian Bureau of Statistics! What's the matter, is it too realistic for your liking?Like I said earlier, men are more likely to be caught when they commit murder. The investigative process used by law enforcement officers is aimed at capturing men who murder. It's why black widows usually kill 6 to 8 of their husbands before alluring suscpicion. If the police treated woman-on-man homicide as seriously as man-on-woman homicide then no black widow would get away with murder. It doesn't take much for a medical examiner to perform an extensive chemical analysis on a corpse's hair, blood, body tissue etc to see if they were subjected to unnaturally high levels of toxins. The cops and medical examiners don't bother to do this because they don't care if women murder their husbands. If they come across a case that shouts out at them, or if the odd cop who actually does his job does everything in his power to ensure justice is served, then the right procedures are performed, but this is not the general rule.Another thing the stats don't mention is how many homicides were performed by men at the request of women. It's not all that uncommon for a woman to con a man into killing her her.You can deny this fact all you like, but it only proves what I said about you being an uneducated bigot who lives in a fantasy world. "Some actual understanding of science and some sturdy data is recommended before you start making homophobic claims about how lesbians are violent. "That's funny. You say that only 2% of domestic violence against Australian women is perpetrated by women. Only 2% of Australia's population are lesbians. Around 96% of Australians are heterosexual. The amount of women who are subjected to domestic violence by men is not anywhere close to being 96%. This means that the relative odds of a lesbian being violent are far higher. The absolute number of cases place men as being the main perpetrators, but this is only because men outnumber lesbians by a very, very large number. If the total number of lesbians and men living in Australia were the same and if the current incidence rates of DV remained the same, then the majority of DV cases would involve a lesbian as the perpetrator.
>the very study he cites is being compared to data procured using different methodology and studing a different age range (26 vs 40, different scales for measuring what counts as domestic abuse)…Both studies were based on the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. The one on lesbians, gays and bisexuals used additional LGB Sailient Tactics alongside the RCT scale, but only because some forms of abuse are unique to homosexuals, such as using the threat of outing a partner to a relative or a colleague. There was no difference in how physical violence and threats of physical violence were measured. The truth is only a very small amount of the data was obtained using different methodology. So, please don't imply that everything was uneven. Doing so proves you have an agenda and aren't shy of using deceitful means to further it.I notice you refused to acknowledge that the "findings were consistent with those of studies in the US". You go on to cite studies from the US, but you never cited the ones that support the findings from Professor Mak's study!
>"And, once again, one murder does not prove that this is typical."I never said they were. Go back and read what I said. I said that these sort of murders are extremely rare, but when they do occur in Australia, they are usually performed by lesbians. To my knowledge, no Australian man has committed this sort of crime.
>So what?
>Okay, homophobia anonymous clearly has no basic understanding of statistics or how to read a scientific study, so I am going to recommend taking basic statistics and methodology of psycology courses, because giving him more information that he is not currently intellectually capable of understanding is a waste of my time."The absolute number of cases place men as being the main perpetrators, but this is only because men outnumber lesbians by a very, very large number. " Yes, this is true, which is why I pointed out that haivng a population of two percent means that same sex abuse composing two percent of the abuse is comparable and proportionate, not marked lower. Of women abused by an intimate partner in Australia, ninty eight percent were abused by a man (tp say that of the victims, ninty eight percent were abused by a man is not the equivalent of saying that ninty eight percent of women are abused, learn basic statistics, please), two percent by a woman. If lesbians compose two percent of the population and commit two percent of domestic abuse, if gay males commit two percent of abuse as well, that means that heteros commit the remaining ninty six percent, meaning that heteros and queer people commit violence at COMPARABLE and PROPORTIONAL rates rather than higher ones, just like I said. "If the total number of lesbians and men living in Australia were the same and if the current incidence rates of DV remained the same, then the majority of DV cases would involve a lesbian as the perpetrator. " This does not follow from the data at all. What follows from the data is that if lesbians were fifty percent, they would commit fifty percent.Basic statistics-learn it, apply it."You go on to cite studies from the US, but you never cited the ones that support the findings from Professor Mak's study" Studies of American queer people do not necessarily apply to queer people in Hong Kong, there are many, many studies on queer people and domestic abuse in the US (though less on trans and bi people than on gays and lesbians), which consistently find comparable rates of abuse, and only one from China which finds discrepant ones. So, there remains one study with a limited sample size (which has more men than women even in the very small sample, making this data not statistically significant with regards to lesbians), a different age group (the study on LGBT people looked at people in their mid twenties, as compared to the average age of forty in China, considering that people in their twenties in all groups commit more abuse than those in their forties, this is a big deal) which used a different measurement scale (which he concedes, but does not seem to understand the importance of, slightly differnet measurement scales can cause vastly different results in psycological studies) is a limited study that should not be taken on its face as accurate. More data is needed from larger, more precise studies before this claim should be accepted.Basic psycology methodology-learn it.When you only have two examples, you need to show that they are not coincidental.Correlation does not prove causation-learn it.Okay, so I just tried to debunk him, for the sake of making sure that others do not accpet his mistakes, however, I do not think he has the level of knowledge in either science or statistics to understand exactly why he is clearly wrong, so I still am recommending that he learn statistics and methodology of psycology before opening his mouth again.
>Okay let me try. There have been two vampiric lesbian murders in Australia, and that proves that lesbians are the most violent people in the world. Is that the argument? Or have we moved the goalposts over to the baseball diamond?
>"Yes, this is true, which is why I pointed out that haivng a population of two percent means that same sex abuse composing two percent of the abuse is comparable and proportionate, not marked lower. Of women abused by an intimate partner in Australia, ninty eight percent were abused by a man (tp say that of the victims, ninty eight percent were abused by a man is not the equivalent of saying that ninty eight percent of women are abused, learn basic statistics, please), two percent by a woman."So now you're talking about intimate partner violence instead of domestic violence. You originally said that lesbians only commit 2% of "all domestic violence". Here is your exact comment:"anon. homophobe's claimed homeland, shows that only two percent of all domestic violence against women is committed by same sex partners, a number which would make it roughly proportionate (assuming same sex dating women compose roughly two percent of the population of Australia)."Intimate partner violence is a form of domestic violence. Not all forms of domestic violence involve an intimate partner. A father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, grandparent, uncle, auntie, in-law, etc can commit domestic violence. This means your original claim about 2% of lesbians assaulting their partners proves my point. If 2% of DV against women is between same-sex partners, then the rate among heterosexual couples cannot be 98%. There are many women out there who've been assaulted by persons other than their partner.You see cat, if you meant to say that the study you referred to — you know, the one which you never bothered to cite — measured intimate partner violence only, then you shouldn't have said "anon. homophobe's claimed homeland, shows that only two percent of all domestic violence against women is committed by same sex partners". A person who understands how to read statistics would't refer to all forms of domestic violence when they really meant to say intimate partner violence. Big error on your behalf buddy.
>"which used a different measurement scale (which he concedes, but does not seem to understand the importance of, slightly differnet measurement scales can cause vastly different results in psycological studies)"Stop trying to deceive everyone with your psychobabble claptrap.Both studies used the same core methodology to obtain their statistics on physical, threats of violence and most forms of psychological abuse. The only reason the one on gays and lesbians added another scale to it is because there is an additional form of psychological abuse that is unique to gay and lesbian couples. Just because this forms of psychological abuse is unique to gays and lesbians doesn't mean it shouldn't be measured. If there was a unique form of psychological abuse among heterosexual couples, then it too would be up for measurement. If the gay and lesbian specific form of bullying still results in the victims feeling scared, intimidated and embarrassed, then it should be included in the study. The only reason you are against including this catergory is because you don't want people to know that gays and lesbians not only use the traditional forms of abuse that are used by heterosexuals and other family members, but have their own form of abuse that's unique to them."Studies of American queer people do not necessarily apply to queer people in Hong Kong"What the hell are you on about? I merely pointed out that Professor Mak said her study supports the findings from American studies. That's what she said. If you have a problem with it, then take it up with her. I suppose you're going to say Professor Mak doesn't understand how to interpret statistics either?I'll take the word of Professor Mak over a bigoted lezzo called "cat".
>"Studies of American queer people do not necessarily apply to queer people in Hong Kong"What are you on about? I merely pointed out that Professor Mak said her study supports the findings from American studies. That's what Mak said. If you have a problem with it, then take it up with Mak. I suppose you're going to say Professor Mak doesn't understand how to interpret statistics either?I'll take Professor Mak's work over your inconsistent ramblings.
>Using the term 'domestic violence' to mean intimate partner violence is very common within psycology and within US law. http://www.domesticviolence.org/definition/ Every study I cite and everything in the discussion was about partner abuse, not child abuse."I merely pointed out that Professor Mak said her study supports the findings from American studies. " She is flat out wrong. Also, the sources she cites directly contradict her statements. The study footnoted as support did not find this, it found "Physical violence occurs in 11–12% of same-gender couples which suggests that domestic violence is an abuse of power that can happen in any type of intimate relationship, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. Although incidents of violence occur at the same rate in same-gender couples and cross-gender couples, the violence appears to be milder in same-gender couples and it is unclear what percentage of same-gender violence should be characterized as abuse or intimate terrorism. Same-gender victims also suffer from the additional stress of severe isolation and the abuser's threats to expose the victim's sexual orientation in a hostile manner." (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2006.00086.x/abstract). The actual finding in the study she cites is consistent with the other government and psycology sources I cited. Seriously, look at the study by Rohrbaugh which she lists as the source of her statistic within her footnotes. What she states is not what Rohrbaugh found in this study. This is either very sloppy, unprofessional research or an outright intentional misrepresentation of data. You don't have to take her word, she gives her source, which says something completely different than her claims. Her other source (note three) also states "The reality is that domestic violence occurs at approximately the same rate in gay and lesbian relationships as it does in heterosexual unions" on page one (http://books.google.com/books?id=maYP2cPdeikC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Renzetti+Violence+in+gay+and+lesbian+domestic+partnerships&source=bl&ots=4wsLJ0QOvt&sig=182bNR9ZgEvTihixTd9qxojHMfE&hl=en&ei=va-uTJSzBcH6lweR8JWCCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) Might want to check her sources before you worship her, because she is misrepresenting them, either intentionally or due to poor research in this case. I suspect the former, given that she appears not to be able to read up through page one of a book she cites. Again, learn to evalutate sources.
Thus, with the traits oscillating superior & minimal within the trend territory one of the panache frenzy tradition, equipment like custom
glasses or wristwatches can never walk out requirement or sight.
The in-patient should avoid scrubbing a person’s eye or
performing anything that may cause the flap to change.
That sounds like good advice, Rex. Thank you. I would not want to oscillate the wristwatch flap, causing the trend to change to a panache frenzy.
Email me in my temple any time!
Dr. Bronner? Is that you?
@rex
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer non sem mi. Cras condimentum commodo metus et tincidunt. Donec placerat consectetur magna, vitae consequat elit tempor ut. Praesent eu mi ut quam maximus efficitur id eu mi. Proin eget leo libero. Nam sit amet lorem nibh. Sed porttitor tellus ut quam pulvinar auctor. Proin tincidunt ligula accumsan molestie bibendum. Etiam eu ex vitae velit bibendum dictum. Aliquam ullamcorper dolor vel ex semper sagittis. In gravida feugiat blandit.
Donec aliquet commodo suscipit. Proin gravida consectetur pulvinar. Fusce auctor, felis eu tempor molestie, magna erat viverra massa, suscipit dapibus est est tristique arcu. Nam dui purus, pellentesque in dui vel, faucibus feugiat risus. Fusce urna est, fermentum ac ligula ac, efficitur egestas ipsum. Nullam augue libero, gravida non dui quis, varius sodales neque. Proin eu lacus bibendum nulla finibus porttitor. Praesent hendrerit posuere risus, ac interdum orci porttitor ut.
Mauris convallis massa massa, ut iaculis enim consectetur eu. Ut nec sem maximus, egestas lorem quis, dapibus risus. Aliquam efficitur ligula sit amet nunc facilisis, quis mattis erat bibendum. Nulla facilisi. Curabitur sit amet dolor maximus, dignissim dui vel, pellentesque urna. Praesent a arcu mauris. Cras quis nulla velit. Nunc laoreet sagittis cursus. Mauris pulvinar purus in nulla feugiat, sit amet hendrerit lorem varius. Nam maximus turpis non posuere tincidunt. Praesent venenatis neque sed purus efficitur accumsan. Fusce sed ex non purus bibendum lacinia. Pellentesque ut sodales nunc. Mauris dignissim quam nec nisl hendrerit, non pellentesque erat dapibus.
Cras libero lacus, iaculis eu sapien in, vehicula maximus mauris. Quisque pellentesque nisl venenatis quam maximus vulputate. Nulla id est laoreet, elementum nibh eget, volutpat ex. Phasellus sed nibh ultrices, eleifend metus in, pretium ipsum. Integer vitae dui vitae ex porttitor laoreet eget sed ligula. Vestibulum egestas est sed dui semper commodo. Pellentesque sed pretium dui, id ultricies dui. Aliquam ligula libero, auctor ac ligula blandit, maximus faucibus elit. Maecenas ultrices at leo eget condimentum. Mauris ut tortor ipsum. In suscipit nisl nec mi dapibus, ac luctus tortor consectetur. Pellentesque tristique purus vitae ultricies mattis. Aenean aliquam justo non metus tempus laoreet et eget ligula. Duis quis faucibus sem. Sed sed interdum neque. In interdum eros vitae posuere consequat.
Duis sed mattis augue. Nullam in ipsum eget ante aliquet feugiat vel vel felis. Praesent vel ante id nisl congue pretium vitae quis ipsum. In dictum feugiat velit, in malesuada est hendrerit at. Mauris congue dolor ex, at molestie quam semper in. Curabitur vitae massa sed metus commodo tincidunt. Nam vehicula hendrerit ultrices.
Why is anonymous white knighting Professor Mak?