1) "I think the distinction between prison rape and non-prison rape is that prison rape is not indicative of culture at large."

this coming from someone entertaining the idea that the culture of modern western countries normalises rape is pretty rich don't you think?

2) "I think one would be remiss to make conclusions about society by discussing conditions in prison. "

and who did so? my argument is that men are the victims of rape more so than women, which i suppose you agree on, therefore, rape is a greater threat to men than to women

Sure but you realize that those are a small fraction compared to those tendencies to not believe an assault happened, right?  I mean I just save dozens of statistics, reports and surveys to back that up. 

OK, stop.  Let's all just stop.  Nobody is saying false accusations are not a problem or that they are often believed on the basis of accusation alone.  These are a problem.  They happen.  They should be addressed and dealt with. Especially if the accuser does so with mal intent. But they are a damn molehill compared to the far bigger problem women face and we are being absolute assholes to those women who have to strategize their entire life around the potential for rape so that we can say "but we get falsely accused too." 

When you get me numbers of false accusations that challenge and rival these, then we can add them to the list of rape culture problems.  Until then, no.  

I'm not worried about being falsely accused of rape.  Why should I?  There is not data to back up a culture of false rape accusations.

You missed the point so radically that I'm not sure english is your first or second language even. 

Woman that identify as a man or as a horse makes no difference, only she has the right to decide what life her body supports. If she wants to carry a pregnancy full term that's fine, if she doesn't that's her choice too. Can you follow so far?

The father's input should be as valid as the mother's as soon as the child is born. Until that point, as long as only the fetus is leeching off of the mother's life force, only her input is really important on wether she wants to carry it full term or terminate the pregnancy. 

Will you somehow misinterpret this? I was never about physical dominance and who is stronger, I have absolutely no idea where you came up with that. A woman not deciding what goes on inside my testicles has nothing to do with some rape fantasy you came up with (how the hell did you even go there?) 

First of all, am not burdening anyone, am not saying that no one has the right to have sex or that they shouldn't. But everyone has to be responsible for everything they do, and is not like having a baby is a punishment or the worst thing that can happened so to someone. Women can be productive for at least 5 or 6 months in their pregnancy and after giving birth they can give the baby to adoption and forget about it for the rest of their life if they want to.

Second, people do have body autonomy, that´s why there are no laws against chopping your arm, your leg or even suicide. People can do with their body what ever they want, its when you put the life of someone else in the middle that i don´t agree.  And am sure you will say that they are only a bunch of cells and all that, but for me is a potential human being

It all comes down to ownership of the body in the end.

The person who is born with said Body has the first and last say of what happens with it, they are the owners, not an unborn child.
No one has the right to live at the expense of another. - The unborn child is more than entitled to survive on it's own accord outside of the body.

It's always been baffling that a fetus is the exception to this rule, because if I was to walk over to a stranger and take a kidney just so I could survive... I would be taken through the legal system.

Heck, even if I was called out to save someones life and that person strictly said "no" they don't want my help. - I am legally not allowed to assist them, I have to talk around them first.

It all comes down to ownership of the body in the end.

The person who is born with said Body has the first and last say of what happens with it, they are the owners, not an unborn child.
No one has the right to live at the expense of another. - The unborn child is more than entitled to survive on it's own accord outside of the body.

It's always been baffling that a fetus is the exception to this rule, because if I was to walk over to a stranger and take a kidney just so I could survive... I would be taken through the legal system.

Heck, even if I was called out to save someones life and that person strictly said "no" they don't want my help. - I am legally not allowed to assist them, I have to talk around them first.

you aren't playing devils advocate, you are employing collective guilt towards men while i am almost completely sure you would claim you are trying to fight sexism and if i'm right oblivious to the irony of it... isn't it funny how that works?

1) First of all, I believe my only real comment on rape culture in this thread was to say that the idea is meaningless and subjective. You seem to be making an assumption about me here, which is not supported by the comments made in this thread.

But I'll treat that as a question and answer it for you, with a resounding, "kinda".

I don't believe that rape, with a hard "r" is normalized. I think at times it may be swept under the rug to avoid inconvenient truths, but there is a reason authors say that rape (hard "r") is the one crime which makes a character permanently evil. You cannot write a sympathetic rapist, or at least so says conventional wisdom.

But "rape" goes far beyond the "man grabs a woman in an alley and rapes her with a knife to her neck". It also means "man buys woman shots until she gets drunk enough to stop saying no", or "man has sex with woman who says no but doesnt act the way he thinks she would if she truly meant it". I think these definitions are where a lot of the issue here comes in. Is it normalized to try to liquor a girl up to get in her pants? 100%. Is it normalized to display sexual dominance when a woman has a moment of doubt? 100%.

2) Again, I don't think you can say that men are more at risk of rape, when in general the risk of rape for is very low except for one extremely high risk population. You can't really use an outlier to make conclusions about the whole group. Especially when the data shows that if you look within even these groups, women are still more at risk than men.

To make a comparison, if you took a neighborhood with 9 people making $10k and 1 person making $1million, you would have 90% of your population under the poverty line, but because of your outlier, your average earnings are about $100,000. Would it be accurate to say that the average person here is upper-middle class? No, an average person in this neighborhood is below the poverty line. Basically, using strict averages becomes significantly less effective when you have a data source with a massive outlier such as this. Generally, in case like this, utilizing a median would be more effective. To quote a website discussing when to use mean vs median:

"Whenever a graph falls on a normal distribution, using the mean is a good choice. But if your data has extreme scores (such as the difference between a millionaire and someone making 30,000 a year), you will need to look at median, because you’ll find a much more representative number for your sample."

In your general NCVS population, it is generally considered that about 10% of victims are male. This makes a prevalence of about 0.2 in 1000 by my math. This means that in prison populations, sexual victimization is about 500 times more prevalent than in the general population. Because of this, you get incredibly skewed data because of an outlier high risk population.

And you managed to glean all of that from a simple question?

Je ne parlay en Englais mes amis. (Thats totaly spelt wong, eye tink...)

If a woman identifies as a man, and she's pregnant, she's now considered a pregnant man. Men then have the ability to choose based on what you said.

Man does what he wants with his body. Man decides to rape woman. Man's rape causes harm to woman. Man pays the price.

Woman does what she wants with her body. Woman decides to get pregnant. Woman's abortion causes harm to man. Woman get's off scot free.

I don't see how the similarities aren't apparent to you. Do you not see how one gender is giving something up for the betterment of the other, yet the other is being somewhat selfish?

It's not some rape fantasy, it's historic fact. Every century you go back, rape culture actually becomes more and more true, right to the point in time where if you were a woman, you at a very young age, found yourself a gladiator of a man to defend you, mostly from being abused and/or raped. A lot of other good came from this, but safety was the main concern.

What I'm saying is we've logically concluded that allowing men to use their brute strength as a weapon to overpower a woman is not a good idea, due to how it effects a woman, so it stands to reason that allowing a woman to use her body as a weapon to always overrule a man is not a good idea, due to how it effects a man, and shouldn't be allowed either.

Nature didn't make you feel all tingly and over the moon because it just wanted you go be able to feel good and make life worth living. It did that because if there was no feeling at all during the act, people wouldn't do it other than to specifically reproduce. Considering it's not just that simple, and can sometimes take attempt after attempt, making those body parts as sensitive as they are, and the overall experience as pleasurable as it can be, leads people to naturally want to experience that quite often. This makes the odds of reproduction considerably higher, which is what nature wants. If it never wanted us, or wanted less of us, it would have done things differently.

Just think about it. Most things that taste good, are ok to eat, and the better they taste, the more we eat it. If something tastes bland or flat out gross, we don't bother with it or stay away from it entirely. Now while this works well, it's not perfect, just like reproduction. Eating way to much fast food, as good as it may taste, will likely make you fat and useless, just like how too much sex will likely lead to too many offspring and being overwhelmed, not to mention overpopulation.

On the topic of nature, since when did it give humans any natural rights? We made those up. Just look at Lions. When a male lion forces the other(s) out, and becomes leader of the pride, one of the first things he does, is kill all the cubs. He does so partially because those other cubs belong to other weaker lions and aren't worth raising as far as he's concerned, and secondly, since he wants to get working on his own offspring asap, by getting rid of those cubs, the females will go into heat again allowing him to be able to do so. When his cubs are only 2 years old or so, when they can reproduce themselves, he kicks them out and says good luck, whether they could survive or not. Why would nature be so harsh? Lion rights?

I'm not saying it wouldn't be tough or a drain on the woman to have to house the child, but it would also be tough and a drain on the man to have no power whatsoever and have his offspring killed without his consent. If consent is given when creating the child, it shouldn't be a given that she should be able to break that agreement without consequence. Truthfully based on that thinking process, a woman could agree to have sex with you, then change her mind during and tell you to stop, and if you don't stop immediately, that split second, she could technically claim you raped her, which is insane. Which of course is tricky, because you can't exactly say if she agree's initially, that you don't have to stop after the fact if she wants you to, because that could be traumatic for her. I just can't believe people can honestly agree that allowing a woman the right to choose for her own body always, makes sense, yet men should be restricted when it comes to theirs at times. Both can do damage to each other, so why not put some restrictions on both? What happened to fairness and equality?

This is another part of the reason why I think a compromise makes the most sense at this point in time anyway. No abortion whatsoever doesn't make complete sense and doesn't please enough people, but abortion with it only being her choice also doesn't completely make sense and doesn't make enough people content. That's why I think a compromise would be the way to go to better serve as many as possible.

Being part of the act, and offering support are different situations that should have different rules applied.

I'm sorry, but are you purposely arguing a strawman here?

1- when the hell does it matter what the pregnant person calls herself? if she decides to call herself a man, how does it remove the body autonomy from that individual? no, men (as a group) or other women (as a group) have no business deciding on behalf of the pregnant individual what she (or he if you want to be arguing semantics) can do with her body in terms of terminating the pregnancy. 

2- when i mentioned no woman has the right to decide what happens with my balls, obviously i'm not atributing myself universal rights to impose over other people. You can't be that disingenuous and pretend I was implying that. It means withing my legal rights (my freedom ends where the other's freedom begins) no other individual has the right to decide what does on inside my body. Obviously it follows that I also don't get to decide what goes on inside another individual's body (womb, testicles or kidneys even).

3- I don't care about natural law, I mentioned our bodies are in fact hardwired through nature (evolution) to seek the pleasure of sex, like any other animal. Are you going to be pedantic on this one too? My point was that the other user seemed to be charging the sexual act as deserving of some punishment in the form of pregnancy even if the involved partiea had no intention to reproduce. 

I fundamentally disagree for the reasons stated above.