They were including unwanted groping and the like. You maybe don't get quite to 100% that way, but I bet it's closer than you think.

I mean rugby wanted to include people being followed (lol) so if he adds a few more things that aren't sexual assault then I'm sure we can get there.

The most pessimistic studies have ~20% of women as victims, with a fairly expansive definition of sexual assault.

That seems way low if ass grabbing and unwanted touching is included. Cite?

I doubt all forms of unwanted touching are included, but that is a goalpost shift.

RAINN says 17.6% (including attempted and completed)

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem

There was no shift but yours. They said groping and you moved it to rape.

Here is a study on street harassment stating 23% had been touched.

http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/...es/statistics/

Even if you define all of those as sexual assault, and assume zero overlap with the 17.6% raped or attempted raped above, you are still under 40%. Not exactly close to 100.

Sigh. I started this conversation by criticizing a quote saying "every woman I know has been sexually assaulted". I provided statistics from a sexual assault prevention group; I assume they know how to define sexual assault.

What do you think it is for waitress's or actresses?

That does not change you moved goalposts to rape.

No one said 100% of women have been raped.

No idea. Sexual assault or harassment?

Ah, sorry. I should have said sexual assault there. It wasn't an intentional shift.

If you have no idea im not sure why it would matter. Point is id guess actresses get unwanted touching more then the avg women.

I could see the harassment being extremely high for those categories, perhaps even close to 100%. Assault I have no idea, but I'm confident it's not near 100%.

Regardless, it's a good point. rugby and johnny could learn something from you.

So you are moving the bar up and down to maximise your chance to ridicule while simultaneously keeping the numbers as low as possible.

Great.

If i asked my work colleague if shed been assualted, she would probably say no. If i said, hey, what about that time the guy on train rubbed his naked cock between your ass cheeks on the train when you were 15, how should she respond?

My friend was walking home and a guy followed her for 10 minutes. She ran into her house. He went into her front garden (yard) and started looking through her windows.

She was alone.

Shall i tell her you find that laughable? Or do you want to do that.

I also thought i was clear. I was not including that to get to 100%. That was nearly being raped in a bathroom and up.

The followed friend had her own stories that topped that. Fwiw

Donkey. I mean this in a sincere way. If you dont have a dozen similar stories, i would suggest that you consider whether you have enough women in your life who can be honest with you.

Maybe self evaluate a little about that?

TLDR of the past 200 posts

All geese are animals.

I want to talk about geese.

I want to talk about animals.

You are stupid.

No you are stupid.

Wat.

Minnie Driver said "sexual assault". I said "sexual assault" in every post on the subject except one, where I accidentally said "rape". When that post was pointed out, I apologized and said I should have said "sexual assault".

This is "moving the bar up and down to maximise your chance to ridicule while simultaneously keeping the numbers as low as possible"?

Give me a break.

I mean, who cares how she responds? I presume RAINN has reasonable methods for gathering their sexual assault statistics that do not depend on every individual victim's definition of assault.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure that is sexual assault.

Posts like this basically sum up why I think your posting is hysterical nonsense.

Above is obviously not sexual assault. What I find laughable is that you think including it in when talking about sexual assaults is reasonable.

If you tried to include murder in the sexual assault stats I would laugh at you as well. It doesn't mean I find the murders themselves laughable, you ****ing ******.

Man you are insane. There are people who use reasonable sampling methods to gather statistics on this stuff, why would I instead rely on straw polling females I know? FFS.

This is basically you:

There's TiltedDonkey in a nutshell. "Why the hell should I care if any of my female friends or family members have ever been groped?"

So you think polling your friends and family members is a good way to estimate sexual assault stats?

I didn't say that.

I didn't say that either.

The purpose of a conservation with the women in your life would not be to get an accurate gauge as to the prevalence of harassment or assault but rather to correct your incredibly callous attitude toward it.

Or to ponder the fact that apparently few (no) women in his life trust him much with personal stuff. That would bother me.

Or maybe they did and got a "lol, thats not sexual assualt you ******"