aluminiumtrioxid

Definitely. Dragonfall is one of the best CRPGs I've played since forever. It's about on par with Alpha Protocol. Another recommendation from me would be The Banner Saga. It has a semi-interesting world (Fantasy Scandinavia in the throes of golem-induced Ragnarök), a tactical combat system with some fairly unique mechanics, and an incredible amount of reactivity to your choices. Other features include insanely cool music, a very strong melancholic atmosphere, boring characters, a plot that's literally running on rails with zero freedom to explore, and a story that ends before it could begin. So, a mixed bag, but it definitely has a soul.

Yes, but those parts are actually pretty irrelevant to the core statement of "nearly 10% of the (female) population has been a victim of rape or attempted rape as defined by forced penetration under a threat of physical violence". Edit: granted, the USA admittedly has a problem with rape, so it's probably a lower number in other western countries (explaining, say, Longknife's different experiences - he's from Germany, if I remember correctly). Edit2, in response to the edit: yes, I've actually misread your post about leading questions (have read "the questions were leading" instead of "questions were leading"), although I didn't, in fact, say that you implied the forced penetration question was misleading. What I've tried to point out by citing the questions was that the parts of the survey related to the "close to 10%" figure weren't leading or open to interpretation. Regardless, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

...I have just provided you with a detailed breakdown on what numbers are there separately for the individual categories of complete forced penetration under threats of physical violence (6.6%), attempted forced penetration under threats of physical violence (2.5%), completed forced penetration under the influence of drugs (also counting alcohol, which is technically a drug) (3.4%), while proving that it was a very clearly phrased and not in any way leading question. Even if all the other options are bull**** on the list, just the sum of completed and attempted forced penetration under threat of physical violence is a whopping 9.1% of the surveyed population. Please forgive me if I favor this study, which is publically available and discloses both its methodology and a detailed breakdown of results over all the others that aren't currently at hand and can't be as easily inspected.

Page 13 has a detailed breakdown: 6.6% experienced complete forced penetration, 2.5% attempted forced penetration, 3.4% completed alcohol/drug-facilitated penetration; 9.8% was pressured in nonphysical ways (abusing influence/authority, threats of ending a relationship - this probably should've had a more detailed breakdown), 6.4% experienced unwanted sexual contact (fondling, forced kissing, grabbing body parts). The fact that this was a survey probably means questions were leading or misinterpreted and a lot of them can be defined differently. How about forced kissing, here's a rather embarrassing story: I struck out with this girl, we were having fun, a bit buzzed, and I thought was into me and I kissed her, only for her to pull away and tell me she wasn't into me that way. I explained I misread her reactions and apologized. She's now a friend of mine. Since she didn't give me obvious consent and I kissed her, does that mean I sexually assaulted her? Page 85 lists the questions. I don't think "How many people have ever used physical force or threats to physically harm you to make you have vaginal sex?/ {if male} perform anal sex?/ receive anal sex?/ make you perform oral sex?/ make you receive oral sex?/ put their fingers or an object in your {if female: vagina or} anus?" (each their separate option) is particularly leading, or can be misinterpreted that way.

Page 13 has a detailed breakdown: 6.6% experienced complete forced penetration, 2.5% attempted forced penetration, 3.4% completed alcohol/drug-facilitated penetration; 9.8% was pressured in nonphysical ways (abusing influence/authority, threats of ending a relationship - this probably should've had a more detailed breakdown), 6.4% experienced unwanted sexual contact (fondling, forced kissing, grabbing body parts). So yeah, that's 9.1% of rape and attempted rape with the threat of physical violence even after discounting alcohol/drugs, nonphysical pressure and non-penetrative sexual violence.

Again, what was our problem with the NISVS study linked earlier which necessitates looking up 10 other different studies with completely undisclosed methodology?

I'm sure a guy with a Nobel prize in economics has a vested interest in trying to cobble together some proof that helps him coping with his utter failure in life. Oh, wait, no. What?Dude don't drink and argue if you are not slavic. I've read about the study in question in one of Kahneman's books; I assume he wouldn't have cited it if he hadn't found the science behind it reasonable. What study? You lost all sense to me. The study about the impact CEO competence has on the overall productivity of companies I'm talking about since two pages?

[citation needed]

I'm sure a guy with a Nobel prize in economics has a vested interest in trying to cobble together some proof that helps him coping with his utter failure in life. Oh, wait, no. What? Dude don't drink and argue if you are not slavic. I've read about the study in question in one of Kahneman's books; I assume he wouldn't have cited it if he hadn't found the science behind it reasonable.

By, say, comparing how many people ask for medical/psychological help in rape-related cases versus how many rape reports are filed to the police?

From the very same article: "According to the American Medical Association (1995), sexual violence, and rape in particular, is considered the most under-reported violent crime.[9][10] The most common reasons given by victims for not reporting rapes are the belief that it is a personal or private matter, and that they fear reprisal from the assailant. A 2007 British government report says "Estimates from research suggest that between 75 and 95 percent of rape crimes are never reported to the police."" Edited to respond to the edit: I'm pretty sure that graph is showing the number of reported rape cases, given that it comes from the Bureau of Justice.

I'm sure a guy with a Nobel prize in economics has a vested interest in trying to cobble together some proof that helps him coping with his utter failure in life. Oh, wait, no.

Bulls***. To everything. Especially the last part. Where did those numbers come from anyway? Gromnir and I discussed this in another thread were we exchanged studies. The most recent CDC study was closer to 1 in 10 than 1 in 5, which is of course still ridiculously much and it's a real problem. Here's a catch though: That CDC study was about sexual violence and classified rape and other violence as different things. It also didn't classify anything other than the perpetrator using a male sexual organ as rape. If adjusted to also allow for "forced to penetrate someone", i.e. a woman raping a man in their definition of rape rather than calling that "other sexual violence", 1 in 10 of both women AND men reported being raped in their lifetime. I'll try and find the study. I stand corrected. Correction: Every time you walk into a room with at least 10 people in it and not thinking "statistically, at least one of them was or will be raped during their lifetime"? Rape culture. My point still stands, though. (I also love how Trashman just went "bull****" and provided no counter-arguments whatsoever, as if he just wanted to prove my "his higher cognitive functions simply shut down when encountering even vaguely feminist-sounding terminology" theory.)

Feel free to crawl up in denial, really, but statistics consistently show that the competence of a CEO has exactly "f*ck" and "all" impact on the overall productivity of a company. I can look up the study for you, if you insist. Sure provide me with a list of companies that was given to unskilled workers to lead. That should be a fun reading. I obviously wouldn't let an unskilled laborer lead my company, because that would lead to investors losing faith etc. etc., but my point is, you could theoretically do it and not lose a significant amount of money (or at least not due to the incompetence of the leadership), if the studies are to be believed. Which is why "I do management, I can't be replaced" people piss me off. Yes, you've undoubtedly studied a lot and worked hard for your position. Your competence still has very little to do with your success.

Feel free to crawl up in denial, really, but statistics consistently show that the competence of a CEO has exactly "f*ck" and "all" impact on the overall productivity of a company. I can look up the study for you, if you insist.

Seeing the astonishingly huge positive difference the publicly-acknowledged "greatest" CEOs make on the overall productivity of a company, I'd say sure, why the **** not? What, you feel threatened here, of all places? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke "To achieve their end, jokes may employ irony, sarcasm, word play and other devices." Guess it must have been "other".

What, you feel threatened here, of all places?

Well, that would certainly spare us from having to do the "are games ART yet?" discussion over and over and over again anytime some pretentious bull**** pops up on Steam.

Aye, I guess a lot of grief could be avoided in these discussions if you dirty feminists could just use a terminology that's not so damn inflammatory / you ignorant twats would just look up what people actually mean by using words that have very specific meanings in the specific context they're mentioned. (Everyone feel free to pick one according to the tribe they feel like belonging to).

Actually, it wasn't, but you're right, the reason behind it being nearly unintelligible was the weird structure of the sentence, not the fault in grammar. I apologise. Yeah, we both know how much influence the party whose only qualifications are "can do unskilled manual labor" has on the outcome of that negotiation.

True enough, but you don't see people screaming "What do you mean, violent crimes aren't committed in a cultural vacuum? How dare you talk about the sociological background and cultural attitudes behind murder?" whenever someone tries to discuss the issue (on a podium, before an audience of about 10 bored-looking sociologists, because let's not kid ourselves, usually that's how those discussions go).

The very discussion we're having is pretty much rape culture in a nutshell. Every time people picture a seedy-looking criminal forcing a young woman at knifepoint to have sex with them (Irréversible, anyone?) when thinking "rape"? Rape culture. Every time people go "calling all sorts of nonconsensual sex 'rape' cheapens the word! YOU ARE THE REAL SEXIST"? Rape culture. Every time you walk into a room with more than 5 women in it and not thinking "statistically, at least one of them was or will be raped during their lifetime"? Rape culture. Essentially, treating rape as this sort of mythical Most Heinous of Crimes only absolute monsters commit instead of something that happens to a fifth of the female population some point in their lifetimes, in the overwhelming majority of cases done by people they're closely familiar with? That is rape culture.

Probably because you're **** as always ? My comment was more on the discussion that followed the article, as I didn't quote Bruce's post, shirty. Large part of the reason these women, at least the ones I've read, waited so long was more due to Cosby's fame and wealth than some concept. Also, shouldn't there be a trigger warning on this article ? I'm honestly curious what **** means in this case. Also, "shirty"? Anyways, I wonder why would someone jump in to comment on the validity of rape culture claims without first reading what said claims are.

I've gotta say, I find it amusing that you somehow managed to turn a repeatedly clarified statement of "society is a complex system where things can have multiple causes" into "BLARGABABHAH". It might be related to a part of your mind that simply shuts down conscious processes and turns you into a frothing idiot whenever issues of feminism are raised. Might be not. IT'S A MYSTERY

Actually, you tossed out a sentence in mangled half-english from which I've tried to extrapolate what you might have meant, and obviously failed, which, I'd say, might be chalked up to my ignorance, or - here's a radical idea - to the simple fact that your grammar is horrible. The part where the only agency with the power to decide what said work is worth has a vested interest in setting it as low as possible in the interest of maximizing profit?