But the alarming thing about the books on CSA is that they all still quote these wonderful stats, without any critical analysis.
For example, when you consider some include looking at someone sexually as sexual abuse - how can a young kei ever KNOW that they have been looked at sexually?
Scarier still is the PC crap they get at school about keeping safe - feeling ‘yucky’ when someone hugs you …

But having a hnady list of stats, no matter how biased or blatantly untrue they may be is actually useful - when someone quoes the old ‘1 in 4 girls’, you can actually argue back with all the contradictory ones.
And yes - I am familiar with the article by Lynley Hood debunking the CCC (Ellis) case.

Cheers all.

Wildly varying statistics is obvious proof that they are fake.

I guess people could start inventing statistics on Male abuse by females, but I’m sure as Males we have higher moral standards about this than females.

These pathetic radical feminists don’t bat an eyelid as they sink to the utmost depths of immorality in an attempt to justify their flawed beliefs with humourous statistics.

The trick is to get impartial statistics, any stats gathered by women’s groups or government departments that are controlled by the matriarchy are always suspect. Abuse is often defined as including insults and put-downs which broadens the scope of abuse but is not something that is exclusive to either gender.

I notice in 1991 that half the 364 women surveyed at Auckland University are supposed to have suffered “some form of sexual victimisation” and 91 of them are supposed to have been raped or have been subjected to attempted rape. This is a truly alarming figure. Who were the male students reponsible? Why haven’t they been held to account? Why was the university failing to protect our daughters and sisters? Or was it just another anti-male survey with loaded questions that define a sideways glance as attempted rape?