"He also told me one thing, 'If you do (have premarital sex), just remember, consensual sex can turn into rape in an awful hurry,' " Rivard said. "Because all of a sudden a young lady gets pregnant and the parents are madder than a wet hen and she's not going to say, 'Oh, yeah, I was part of the program.' All that she has to say or the parents have to say is it was rape because she's underage. And he just said, 'Remember, Roger, if you go down that road, some girls,' he said, 'they rape so easy.'
"What the whole genesis of it was, it was advice to me, telling me, 'If you're going to go down that road, you may have consensual sex that night and then the next morning it may be rape.' So the way he said it was, 'Just remember, Roger, some girls, they rape so easy. It may be rape the next morning.'
daedalus wrote: Doesn't this feel just a tiny bit deliberate to you guys yet? I mean, these people aren't this stupid. They're really not.
Of course not all Republicans are this stupid, but some of them absolutely are. Same goes for Democrats and non-party affiliated people. Having intelligence in one area doesn't mean that one is intelligent in all fields. Just because one is an Engineer at the top of their field doesn't mean they know anything about balancing a budget or human interaction. To reiterate, yes, some people are this stupid.
I'm not sure I like having this Topic on Dakka.... I don't think anyone in their right minds would endorse a statement like that so there isn't actually all that much to talk about here...
I dunno, why lock it? The issue is that a point that might be valid, however misogynistic, was delivered in an extremely misogynistic way. The remark is not so much being taken out of context as it is reminding us of what that context really is.
Manchu wrote: I dunno, why lock it? The issue is that a point that might be valid, however misogynistic, was delivered in an extremely misogynistic way. The remark is not so much being taken out of context as it is reminding us of what that context really is.
Dang now my post looks stupid.
I already deleted it. Please don't spam the forum. Thanks ~ Manchu
Hrmmm.... well besides the way it was said being the WORST possible way to bring up that false reports of rape are a thing that certainly does happen and get innocent men in trouble... not sure what else there is to really say here.
No, noone would be that stupid, even if they privately thought it was all a little overblown and that women made too big a deal out of it... but some folks, particularly several prominent republicans of the hardline social right wing, have let slip some seriously eyebrow raising comments alluding to them finding rape a bit of a fuss over nothing.
No, noone would be that stupid, even if they privately thought it was all a little overblown and that women made too big a deal out of it... but some folks, particularly several prominent republicans of the hardline social right wing, have let slip some seriously eyebrow raising comments alluding to them finding rape a bit of a fuss over nothing.
Right no I'm aware of that big. Politicians + Mouths = Oh dear.
I've been mulling this one over some more. In-context, the phrase "some girls rape easy" strikes a deeply grim note. It's suitable for a serious conversation between a dad and a son who's likely to soon be sexually active for the first time. From a father's point of view, his son needs to know that the world is definitely not what it ought to be. Are you Dakkanauts seriously never going to make a similar point to your sons? The real question is why can't we say this good, necessary advice in public? Human beings, not just girls and women, do change their minds about things that have already happened. Is it misandric for a parent to tell their daughter "some boys will want to rape you"? Girls need to hear that, obviously. It's true. And I can say that on TV.
Given that I have been personally mocked by girls for my refusal to commit rape, it's probably fair to say that human sexuality is more complicated than the general public's ability to understand it. Que sara.
I have to say, these lads really need to keep their yaps shut on these kinda topics, surely they must be able to see that its hurting their cause?
Its like my boss nominating me, one of the most bigoted and intolerant people in his company to be the Anglo-Afghan liaison officer in charge of meeting with the local mayor and the TV cameras!
You know.. some people are better than others at talking to the press, doesn't it make sense to tell the more...er... vehement in their belief chaps to wind it in for a little while?
I mean, you can hold your beliefs, but you don't have to constantly bark on about them if its going to cost you!
Testify wrote: Given that I have been personally mocked by girls for my refusal to commit rape, it's probably fair to say that human sexuality is more complicated than the general public's ability to understand it. Que sara.
mattyrm wrote: I have to say, these lads really need to keep their yaps shut on these kinda topics, surely they must be able to see that its hurting their cause?
Its like my boss nominating me, one of the most bigoted and intolerant people in his company to be the Anglo-Afghan liaison officer in charge of meeting with the local mayor and the TV cameras!
You know.. some people are better than others at talking to the press, doesn't it make sense to tell the more...er... vehement in their belief chaps to wind it in for a little while?
I mean, you can hold your beliefs, but you don't have to constantly bark on about them if its going to cost you!
I'd pay good money to have you placed as the Anglo-Afghan Liaison officer for your unit. Especially if we can get it all on film. YEARS of entertainment.
Testify wrote: Given that I have been personally mocked by girls for my refusal to commit rape, it's probably fair to say that human sexuality is more complicated than the general public's ability to understand it. Que sara.
Testify wrote: Given that I have been personally mocked by girls for my refusal to commit rape, it's probably fair to say that human sexuality is more complicated than the general public's ability to understand it. Que sara.
Warning: contains swearing.
Yeah. That attitude is quite common in women.
My "friend" is still massively attracted to her ex who raped her.
Manchu wrote: I've been mulling this one over some more. In-context, the phrase "some girls rape easy" strikes a deeply grim note. It's suitable for a serious conversation between a dad and a son who's likely to soon be sexually active for the first time. From a father's point of view, his son needs to know that the world is definitely not what it ought to be. Are you Dakkanauts seriously never going to make a similar point to your sons? The real question is why can't we say this good, necessary advice in public? Human beings, not just girls and women, do change their minds about things that have already happened. Is it misandric for a parent to tell their daughter "some boys will want to rape you"? Girls need to hear that, obviously. It's true. And I can say that on TV.
Testify wrote: it's probably fair to say that human sexuality is more complicated than the general public's ability to understand it
So what's the solution? Only talk about these issues in furtive, low-voices with the blinds drawn? Seems a bit Victorian.
I'm not going to rant on about "femonazis" controlling the media, since it's bollocks.
But I'd say that culturally the link between sex and violence is not acknowledged. Certainly the idea of women being naturally submissive and appreciative of violence is considered "taboo" in modern media, less so in the real world. And yes I am aware that some men also enjoy such things before I get flamed.
Testify wrote: Given that I have been personally mocked by girls for my refusal to commit rape, it's probably fair to say that human sexuality is more complicated than the general public's ability to understand it. Que sara.
Warning: contains swearing.
Yeah. That attitude is quite common in women.
My "friend" is still massively attracted to her ex who raped her. Women are fethed up
I really doubt that I don't think many women enjoy rape.
Testify wrote: Certainly the idea of women being naturally submissive and appreciative of violence is considered "taboo" in modern media, less so in the real world.
Wait, is that your answer to my question about why it's less okay to publicly tell boys that girls might falsely accuse them of rape than it is to tell girls that boys might want to rape them?
Testify wrote: Certainly the idea of women being naturally submissive and appreciative of violence is considered "taboo" in modern media, less so in the real world.
Wait, is that your answer to my question about why it's less okay to publicly tell boys that girls might falsely accuse them of rape than it is to tell girls that boys might want to rape them?
No. Only neanderthals think that, it is obvious to most decent people that the damage caused by being raped is far worse than the damage caused by a false accusation, as well as being far more likely.
But I'd regard that as the mother's duty anyway. I don't think I could look into the eyes of a child and tell her that one day someone might rape her...
Manchu wrote: I've been mulling this one over some more. In-context, the phrase "some girls rape easy" strikes a deeply grim note. It's suitable for a serious conversation between a dad and a son who's likely to soon be sexually active for the first time. From a father's point of view, his son needs to know that the world is definitely not what it ought to be. Are you Dakkanauts seriously never going to make a similar point to your sons? The real question is why can't we say this good, necessary advice in public? Human beings, not just girls and women, do change their minds about things that have already happened. Is it misandric for a parent to tell their daughter "some boys will want to rape you"? Girls need to hear that, obviously. It's true. And I can say that on TV.
I most certainly would not. The incidence of this is extremely rare. Despite what "Men's Rights" nutters might want to believe, there aren't hordes women out there just waiting for you to have sex with them so they can pull the surprise presto-chango you're a rapist routine. I may well as well tell him to "Wear a helmet, meteorite might hit you" it's beyond silly. The majority of these cases that some people try to frame as "Changed her mind later" really are legitimate cases where either consent was withdrawn at some point in the process, or never really given in the first place and he kept going in spite of it. If ever have children I'm going to tell them all, son or daughter the exact same thing on this subject:
Only have sex when you feel comfortable doing so, and only have sex with partner who is giving clear, informed and active consent while a capable state of mind.
I certainly do not have to tell my daughter to be afraid of rape, that's for sure. Our culture does that every day. We bombard women with the threat of rape constantly, from all directions. There isn't a woman alive in america today who isn't only aware of rape, but is also aware of all the things she can supposedly do to invite it upon myself. If I'm going to tell her *Anything specific* it's me
*There is nothing she could do deserve harm.
*Nothing anyone does lessens her value as a human being, or changes my feelings.
*If she ever feels overwhelmed, afraid or threatened please come to me, I am on your side.
I most certainly would not. The incidence of this is extremely rare. Despite what "Men's Rights" nutters might want to believe, there aren't hordes women out there just waiting for you to have sex with them so they can pull the surprise presto-chango you're a rapist routine.
I believe the better approach would be to inform him that what constitutes "jail bait" is no longer 17.
I'm also somewhat curious as to how Wisconsin state law would handle a sexual relationship between two 15 year old girls, given that neither of them can grant consent; at least assuming the standards for consent vary according to sex (which is not unheard of).
@Testify: I'm struggling to understand who you're labeling neanderthals.
@Chongara: You seem to believe there are hordes of men who want to rape women. But the idea that women might use sexual contact in a vindicative, potentially life-destorying way is unthinkable? It reminds me of how Queen Victoria illegalized gay sex but refused to believe there was a such a thing as a lesbian.
Manchu wrote: @Testify: I'm struggling to understand who you're labeling neanderthals.
The sort of people who write vitriolic articles in the Daily Mail attacking women who falsely accuse of rape. Yes it's horrible, but it's also very rare.
Another poster further up compared them to the "wear a tin hat to avoid lightening" loonies.
I wouldn't want to instill into any son of mine the idea that women generally were out to "get him" but then I do figure I'd want to instill that idea into my daughter regarding men. Something seems wrong here, and I don't think it's "the patriarchy." I'm not talking from a conscious ideology; just chatting as we go. So for example, Chongara's prospective advice to his children sounds reasonable but I don't think it covers the real issue, which is what is clear, informed, and active consent "on the ground"? How is a sexually inexperienced teenager supposed to know that when its difficult to determine in a court of law?
@Chongara: You seem to believe there are hordes of men who want to rape women. But the idea that womenght use sexual contact in a vindicative, potentially life-destorying way is unthinkable? It reminds me of how Queen Victoria illegalized gay sex but refused to believe there was a such a thing as a lesbian.
No. I don't think I ever said there are hordes of men out there waiting to rape. I think our culture certainly gives that perception, that a woman is in danger of rape at all times everywhere especially if she's doing or wearing anything fun. That means nobody has to (or should), go out of way to tell a woman or girl "You might get raped" she already knows this, there is no way for her to not know this.
My current understanding is that the portion of the male population that commits rape, or some other predatory sexual attack is about 6%. While that certainly means there is a non-trivial number of predators, the overwhelming majority of men are clearly not rapists.
None of this changes the fact that the presto-chango bs is rare. While I guess it's not "unthinkable", it's not anything I'd give consideration as a real threat in my or my son's life. Rape already goes under reported, and those reports are frequently weakly pursued. I'd need to see some strong evidence to convince me that some meaningful number of the few rape cases that actually come to light are just some kind of petty revenge/cover up on the part of the victim.
Chongara wrote: While I guess it's not "unthinkable", it's not anything I'd give consideration as a real threat in my or my son's life.
Just like rape, I think the perceived seriousness of the consequences of being accused of rape rather than the probability of its occurrence should drive a parent's concern. Along with being called a racist or a pedophile, being called a rapist is basically the worst thing that can be said of someone in the contemporary West. Certainly, no sexual encounter is worth that sobriquet.
Chongara wrote: While I guess it's not "unthinkable", it's not anything I'd give consideration as a real threat in my or my son's life.
Just like rape, I think the perceived seriousness of the consequences of being accused of rape rather than the probability of its occurrence should drive a parent's concern. Along with being called a racist or a pedophile, being called a rapist is basically the worst thing that can be said of someone in the contemporary West. Certainly, no sexual encounter is worth that sobriquet.
My point is the chances of you being called a the risk of falsely being labeled rapist is very slim. It might be serious but it's not likely enough to be any sort of driving concern. Getting mauled by tiger is pretty damn serious, but it's not like I'm going to tell someone to avoid going to the Zoo because "One of the workers might leave the tiger enclosure open, just to see what will happen". You're counting on something that while certainly possible, isn't remotely close to likely.
The best way to avoid being accused of rape is to not rape, and not raping is pretty damn easy.
The best way to avoid being accused of rape is to not rape, and not raping is pretty damn easy.
I think that's what part of what's being discussed. Unless you demand written, signed consent before you have sex with someone, there is a grey area.
Written consent is no more or less vulnerable to invalidation by things like such coercion, intoxication or force than any other form of granting consent. This is just a silly statement.
The best way to avoid being accused of rape is to not rape, and not raping is pretty damn easy.
I think that's what part of what's being discussed. Unless you demand written, signed consent before you have sex with someone, there is a grey area.
Written consent is no more or less vulnerable to invalidation by things like such coercion, intoxication or force than any other form of granting consent. This is just a silly statement.
Being accused of rape is not really as unlikely as getting hit by a meteor or mauled by a tiger at the zoo. Can you please reign in the rhetoric a bit?
You can dismiss Testify's point that written consent is no less problematic than verbal but how about addressing his point that "not raping is pretty damn easy" might be merely conclusory?
Manchu wrote: Being accused of rape is not really as unlikely as getting hit by a meteor or mauled by a tiger at the zoo. Can you please reign in the rhetoric a bit?
You can dismiss Testify's point that written consent is no less problematic than verbal but how about addressing his point that "not raping is pretty damn easy" might be merely conclusory?
Ok. Secret formula for not being a rapist:
-Only have sex with people who are in state of mind where they can consent. They're not black-out drunk, high on drugs, asleep or underage.
-You are not threatening, blackmailing, restraining (without getting consent to do so), or otherwise preventing the person from withdrawing consent.
-Only have sex with people who clearly communicate they wish to be having sex. This can either be verbally "Please [Censored] me, until I [Censored] all over your [censored]" or in some other fashion, such as vigorously and enthusiastically thrusting their genitals into/on your own.
-If you're having sex and someone appears to become withdrawn during the act, stays still, becomes quite or otherwise ceases whatever confirmation of consent you were getting before stop the sex and re-confirm they are giving consent. "Are you OK" ,"would you like me to keep going". If you receive an affirmative response, continue to the activity. If you get no response, or a negative response stop.
-If you feel your self incapable of doing any of the above, don't have sex.
Manchu wrote: I'm sure that's just how a lot of rapists remember it happening.
Not really. Rapists will tend to self-report failing to do one or more of those things when you leave the word "Rape" out of the survey. That is, if you ask a rapist something like "Have you ever had sex with someone while she was totally blacking out?" he'll say yes. If you ask him "Have you ever used alcohol to rape someone" that same person with say no (obviously). In either case he doesn't see himself as rapist and will likely cry about her pulling the presto-chango should anyone ever come forward on it, even though he clearly is a rapist.
Honestly the "accidental rape" trope is part of what's doing so much damage. If only 6% of men commit rape/sexual assaults, how are as much as 20% winding victims of rape or sexual assault? It's that these dudes have multiple victims. These sorts of predators are habitual offenders who go unreported, because this odd sort of skepticism and shame some folks seem to insist on approaching rape victims with.
EDIT: Even if they did think they went through all those steps, it still doesn't' change anything.. If you're able to delude yourself into thinking someone is fething you with a passion while they're lying their wishing it would stop, you're as dangerous as any knife-wielding maniac out there.
Monster Rain wrote: What's with pretending that it's impossible for someone to be the victim of a false rape accusation?
It's happened once or twice, according to my Google-fu.
Hey it's happened once or twice, it's the big issue here!
I'm not saying it's impossible, certainly human beings have done all sorts of twisted things to each other including willful, knowing false accusations of all stripes. That said some things happen infrequently enough that it isn't really something you or people you're advising should be worried about it. It's certainly not at all a useful perspective to be coming at the issue of rape from.
I'm not sure I understand your point about the "accidental rape trope" in relation to serial or "predator" rapists. It seems to me that cases in which the alleged perpetrator is the only common denominator between two otherwise unrelated incidents of sexual assault is not what we're talking about. Nor are we really talking about the incidence of all rape. The issue here is sexual contact involving people of middle school through college age.
Manchu wrote: I'm not sure I understand your point about the "accidental rape trope" in relation to serial or "predator" rapists. It seems to me that cases in which the alleged perpetrator is the only common denominator between two otherwise unrelated incidents of sexual assault is not what we're talking about. Nor are we really talking about the incidence of all rape. The issue here is sexual contact involving people of middle school through college age.
A woman will be far less likely to report a sexual assault if she feels any of the following true:
A) She will be called a liar.
B) She will be told she was "Asking for it"
C) She will otherwise face shame for making the report.
The "Accidental Rape' trope plays heavily into A & B particularly B. She hears about "Oh some guy had sex and later the girl decides she didn't want to, what a bitch." and she's afraid of being seen that way, it's a real fear. Making a rape accusation hardly has zero social costs for the victim (again all the more reason not to make false accusations). Because of this women are far less likely to report being sexually assaulted than they would if things like the "Accidental Rape" trope weren't so commonplace. When the rape doesn't go reported, it has no chance of being pursued . When it isn't pursued the predator is free to rack up more victims and continue his habitual assaults unhindered.
This is particularly true in exactly the age range you're talking about. Where people are frequently exposed to risk factors (such as alcohol), are in close-knit social circles with plenty of opportunity for shame, and these young women are less secure and confident than they might be later in life. It's the perfect recipe for under reporting, and therefore easy habitual offending by the small group of predators.
Is being accused of a crime falsely horrible? Yes. Should it be treated as seriously as any other crime when it comes to light? Yes. Should we close our minds to the possibility of it happening? No.
Is it prevalent enough to warrant any special kind of fixation on that point "Warn your sons before they go out"? No. Especially when this particularly cultural nuggets is already exaggerating an existing problem.
Why are such trivialities as rape, abortion and gay marriage considered major issues? Leave rape the way it was, allow abortions to anyone who wants one, and let gays marry. Then we can start tackling real issues, like the environment, the economy, the educational system, unemployment, alternative energy, etc.
Manchu wrote: To clarify, you mean that people in this age range are at greater risk of underreporting rape not that they are at greater risk of being raped?
My understanding is that it is both, at least when it comes to the sort rape that people try to sweep away as "Accidental". Particularly for college-aged women. The thing is that the low amount of formal reports or complaints (relative to the total number of actual assaults), makes it easier for further assaults to take place, thus also making the risk of assault higher than it would be if it was reported better. The first problem feeds the second.
The incidence of both rape and false rape need to be compared with the overall rate of sexual relations that happen naturally and pleasantly for both partners, which is millions of times a week.
False rape certainly occurs, but the rate of prosecution and conviction is far lower than for actual rape.
In fact you are probably more likely to be a victim of male rape than of false female rape.
I think that's immaterial, KK. The perceived problem is not specifically or even primarily conviction on a false accusation but rather just the overall social costs of being accused. The incidence of false accusation is actually poorly understood despite strong claims ITT to the contrary. But in the absence of a compelling picture of incidence, there has grown up a culture of fear. I won't deny the misogynistic overtones it entails much less attempt to excuse them. At the same time, simply rejecting the concern is really foolish.
The concern needs to be qualified: women are not out to get men and men are not out to get women. That has to be a first principal. As things stand, there is also a misandrous culture of fear that every man is potentially a rapist and I think our understanding of the incidence of actual rape is at least a bit better than that. As Chongara points out, we're almost always talking about patterns of behavior not some once-in-a-lifetime misunderstanding when it comes to actual rape.
Going back to the politician's remark, the idea that "some women rape easy" can certainly be seen as an attack on women generally. It fits into the "women are out to get us" mentality that, if we're honest, is pretty ubiquitous. His dad was saying, a woman that you want to marry is the only one you can trust as far as sexual intimacy is concerned. But what I keep coming back to is, what if this isn't actually an issue of fear or hatred of women and it's actually just a matter of concerned parenthood. So, for example, had that father been talking to a daughter, it's not a stretch to imagine him saying "some boys just want to use you so it's best not to have sex until you're married." I guess that statement could fit into a ubiquitous "men are out to get us" mentality. But with that one, we seem more willing to say that the real concern is parental rather than misandrous.
If the incidence of happy sexual relations is several orders of magnitude higher than the incidence of rape, and the incidence of rape is several orders of magnitude above the incidence of false rape accusation, then men have little to worry about.
If the incidence of happy sexual relations is several orders of magnitude higher than the incidence of rape, and the incidence of rape is several orders of magnitude above the incidence of false rape accusation, then men have little to worry about.
Depends on the statistics though. US reports pop 20% - 25% of women have reported being raped in their lives. Thats a big damn number.
-Only have sex with people who clearly communicate they wish to be having sex. This can either be verbally "Please [Censored] me, until I [Censored] all over your [censored]" or in some other fashion, such as vigorously and enthusiastically thrusting their genitals into/on your own.
Except a)Someone can rub themselves on you and still not want to have sex, b)some people, as already demonstrated, prefer it happening without them initiating it.
-If you're having sex and someone appears to become withdrawn during the act, stays still, becomes quite or otherwise ceases whatever confirmation of consent you were getting before stop the sex and re-confirm they are giving consent. "Are you OK" ,"would you like me to keep going". If you receive an affirmative response, continue to the activity. If you get no response, or a negative response stop.
Depends how into it you get...you may not always notice if the person you're with isn't "into it".
If the incidence of happy sexual relations is several orders of magnitude higher than the incidence of rape, and the incidence of rape is several orders of magnitude above the incidence of false rape accusation, then men have little to worry about.
Depends on the statistics though. US reports pop 20% - 25% of women have reported being raped in their lives. Thats a big damn number.
Oh god, I'm seeing Frazzled as the voice of reason in a thread. I think I may have a panic attack.
If the incidence of happy sexual relations is several orders of magnitude higher than the incidence of rape, and the incidence of rape is several orders of magnitude above the incidence of false rape accusation, then men have little to worry about.
Depends on the statistics though. US reports pop 20% - 25% of women have reported being raped in their lives. Thats a big damn number.
Oh god, I'm seeing Frazzled as the voice of reason in a thread. I think I may have a panic attack.
Agreed. When Frazzled is the voice of reason, its time to hide in a corner and start muttering "There's no place like home. There's no place like home. There's no place..."
This thread has been really difficult for me to follow; are people really dis/agreeing or just misunderstanding one another? So, regarding Frazzled's response that up to 1/4 of women have reported being raped, I don't think KK is suggesting that rape is a less significant problem than we imagine but rather that, from a man's perspective, it is far more likely than not that the sexual encounters he experiences will not involve rape much less false accusations of rape. (Of course, that's not what I objected to, either: I objected to the idea that the allegedly minuscule incidence of conviction on false accusation is material.) And Frazzled, what do you think that 1/4 of all women reporting rape says about the overall incidence of rape? And what do you think that means with regard to what percentage of the population is doing the raping? We need a little more info before sagely nodding and patting each other on the back, I think.
Manchu wrote: This thread has been really difficult for me to follow; are people really dis/agreeing or just misunderstanding one another? So, regarding Frazzled's response that up to 1/4 of women have reported being raped, I don't think KK is suggesting that rape is a less significant problem than we imagine but rather that, from a man's perspective, it is far more likely than not that the sexual encounters he experiences will not involve rape much less false accusations of rape. (Of course, that's not what I objected to, either: I objected to idea that the allegedly minuscule incidence of conviction on false accusation is material.) And Frazzled, what do you think that 1/4 of all women reporting rape says about the overall incidence of rape? And what do you think that means with regard to what percentage of the population is doing the raping? We need a little more info before sagely nodding and patting each other on the back, I think.
Agreed.
To your points.
1. there is the always the chance of false accusations. It has occurred in the past. That is why the legal system with "reasonable doubt" as the legal standard is excellent. Assuming an intentional false accusation: I'd proffer thats actually really low, especially in the US.
2. To the statistic noted. I hope hope hope that is overstated in a major way, BUT A. I fear its not dramatically overstated; B. One is one damn too many.
3. I believe in absolute capital punishment for the crime.
According to the always reliable statistics found on Wikipedia the 2010 rate for rape in the United States is 27.3 per 100,000 of the population. (I would assume that 100,000 counts both men and women, so it the majority of rapes are male on female then you could probably imply that the rate is actually higher if you only take women into consideration.)
Now other statistics say that between 75-95% of rapes go unreported, and if that is correct then we have a number that is not looking very pretty and we could end up with 400-500 rapes per 100,000 of the population, which is still only 0.5% of people. Now even if you assume that almost all rapes are male on female and that half the population is female that would "only" end up with 1% of the population getting raped if you try to adjust the numbers for women and unreported rapes.
But then other statistics and studies at colleges come up with anywhere between 10-25% of women reporting being raped at some point in their lives, and another study found that 4.7% experienced rape or attempted rape each year. Which is a very different number than the rapes/100,000 people. Of course statistics are very hard to make sense of sometimes, and methods can lead to very different results.
Other studies find that 1 out of 6 women will experience some form of sexual assault, including childhood abuse. Which should make us wonder how something like this could be this prevalent. Does this include women who feel like they have been assaulted? Almost 50% of rapes involve alcohol by both parties, so while things might have gotten hot and steamy the woman could easily be quietly saying "no....no..." and the guy just keeps going. Which could easily result in a woman not reporting it because she 'knows' that "I was drunk, I took him home, everybody is going to say it was my fault, we made out, I didn't mean for it to lead to sex, but who will believe me". So for legal purposes and for the way she feels, it could very easily be rape to her.
Which is why we need a lot of education of young guys that no = no.
Anyway, glad this didn't get locked, good discussion going on.
- If 25% are reporting rape, how many are being raped overall (i.e., reporting and non-reporting)? I'm not asking for an exact figure but a ballpark -- are we talking 30% or 50% or 65% or more?
- Whatever number you come up with for the above, what percentage of the population do you think is responsible? (again, ballpark)
Same questions for Chongara and whoever else cares to weigh in.
If the incidence of happy sexual relations is several orders of magnitude higher than the incidence of rape, and the incidence of rape is several orders of magnitude above the incidence of false rape accusation, then men have little to worry about.
Depends on the statistics though. US reports pop 20% - 25% of women have reported being raped in their lives. Thats a big damn number.
That seems ludicrously high, are you telling the truth? Hard to read the truth in the eyes of a wiener dog. Especially one with a penchant for trolling.
d-usa wrote: According to the always reliable statistics found on Wikipedia the 2010 rate for rape in the United States is 27.3 per 100,000 of the population. (I would assume that 100,000 counts both men and women, so it the majority of rapes are male on female then you could probably imply that the rate is actually higher if you only take women into consideration.)
Now other statistics say that between 75-95% of rapes go unreported, and if that is correct then we have a number that is not looking very pretty and we could end up with 400-500 rapes per 100,000 of the population, which is still only 0.5% of people. Now even if you assume that almost all rapes are male on female and that half the population is female that would "only" end up with 1% of the population getting raped if you try to adjust the numbers for women and unreported rapes.
But then other statistics and studies at colleges come up with anywhere between 10-25% of women reporting being raped at some point in their lives, and another study found that 4.7% experienced rape or attempted rape each year. Which is a very different number than the rapes/100,000 people. Of course statistics are very hard to make sense of sometimes, and methods can lead to very different results.
Other studies find that 1 out of 6 women will experience some form of sexual assault, including childhood abuse. Which should make us wonder how something like this could be this prevalent. Does this include women who feel like they have been assaulted? Almost 50% of rapes involve alcohol by both parties, so while things might have gotten hot and steamy the woman could easily be quietly saying "no....no..." and the guy just keeps going. Which could easily result in a woman not reporting it because she 'knows' that "I was drunk, I took him home, everybody is going to say it was my fault, we made out, I didn't mean for it to lead to sex, but who will believe me". So for legal purposes and for the way she feels, it could very easily be rape to her.
Which is why we need a lot of education of young guys that no = no.
Anyway, glad this didn't get locked, good discussion going on.
Your stats don't work. Thats per year, and as noted reported in a specific category (and its wiki). Other stats show much, much higher levels.
If the incidence of happy sexual relations is several orders of magnitude higher than the incidence of rape, and the incidence of rape is several orders of magnitude above the incidence of false rape accusation, then men have little to worry about.
Depends on the statistics though. US reports pop 20% - 25% of women have reported being raped in their lives. Thats a big damn number.
That seems ludicrously high, are you telling the truth? Hard to read the truth in the eyes of a wiener dog. Especially one with a penchant for trolling.
I doubt it's that high in many other places...
Why on earth would I be trolling? I have a wife and a daughter. I have no interest in the stat being high, indeed, it would be an epic wish it were low (better nonexistent). I'd pull stats but am at work.
- If 25% are reporting rape, how many are being raped overall (i.e., reporting and non-reporting)? I'm not asking for an exact figure but a ballpark -- are we talking 30% or 50% or 65% or more?
I may have misread Frazzled, earlier. My understanding is that around 20% (perhaps just under) of women experience a rape or major sexual assault at some point their lives. The formal reporting of this, say to authorities is much lower, while reporting rates in anonymous studies or other places women feel protected are closer to the actual numbers.
If you include inappropriate behavior that doesn't reach the level of rape or a major assault I'd wager the number gets damn high (majority of women). Dude copping a feel, or being too forceful etc.. Though that particular thought is just my opinion. It's not based on anything I've heard by way of a study or whatever.
- Whatever number you come up with for the above, what percentage of the population do you think is responsible? (again, ballpark)
5-6% of the population according to what I've seen in the past. They're usually repeat offenders, admitting to 5-7 rapes each which matches well with the numbers above assuming some are repeat victims. I've seen some numbers that went as high as 12%, however those tended to be numbers that looked at narrower populations such as military recruits and I didn't put much stock in them personally.
d-usa wrote: ... it could very easily be rape to her.
There's that issue again, which is the central one. In some ways, we're not really concerned about statistics and probabilities (thanks for reminding us that they don't necessarily help) but rather matters of definition, like how material a victim's perception of assault is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chongara wrote: Though that particular thought it is just my opinion. It's not based on anything I've heard by way of a study or whatever.
It sounds like a reasonable opinion to me. Generally, I think we have a lot of unwanted, sexualized contact (whether verbal or physical) and that reality, quite apart from statistical analysis, reporting, or convictions, is what motivates parents to tell their girls that boys will rape them and tell their girls that boys will accuse them of rape (one can imagine, even within the same household).
- If 25% are reporting rape, how many are being raped overall (i.e., reporting and non-reporting)? I'm not asking for an exact figure but a ballpark -- are we talking 30% or 50% or 65% or more?
I may have misread Frazzled, earlier. My understanding is that around 20% (perhaps just under) of women experience a rape or major sexual assault at some point their lives. The formal reporting of this, say to authorities is much lower, while reporting rates in anonymous studies or other places women feel protected are closer to the actual numbers.
If you include inappropriate behavior that doesn't reach the level of rape or a major assault I'd wager the number gets damn high (majority of women). Dude copping a feel, or being too forceful etc.. Though that particular thought it is just my opinion. It's not based on anything I've heard by way of a study or whatever.
- Whatever number you come up with for the above, what percentage of the population do you think is responsible? (again, ballpark)
5-6% of the population according to what I've seen in the past. They're usually repeat offenders, admitting to 5-7 rapes each which matches well with the numbers above assuming some are repeat victims. I've seen some numbers that went as high as 12%, however those tended to be numbers that looked at narrower populations such as military recruits and I didn't put much stock in them personally.
d-usa wrote: According to the always reliable statistics found on Wikipedia the 2010 rate for rape in the United States is 27.3 per 100,000 of the population. (I would assume that 100,000 counts both men and women, so it the majority of rapes are male on female then you could probably imply that the rate is actually higher if you only take women into consideration.)
Now other statistics say that between 75-95% of rapes go unreported, and if that is correct then we have a number that is not looking very pretty and we could end up with 400-500 rapes per 100,000 of the population, which is still only 0.5% of people. Now even if you assume that almost all rapes are male on female and that half the population is female that would "only" end up with 1% of the population getting raped if you try to adjust the numbers for women and unreported rapes.
But then other statistics and studies at colleges come up with anywhere between 10-25% of women reporting being raped at some point in their lives, and another study found that 4.7% experienced rape or attempted rape each year. Which is a very different number than the rapes/100,000 people. Of course statistics are very hard to make sense of sometimes, and methods can lead to very different results.
Other studies find that 1 out of 6 women will experience some form of sexual assault, including childhood abuse. Which should make us wonder how something like this could be this prevalent. Does this include women who feel like they have been assaulted? Almost 50% of rapes involve alcohol by both parties, so while things might have gotten hot and steamy the woman could easily be quietly saying "no....no..." and the guy just keeps going. Which could easily result in a woman not reporting it because she 'knows' that "I was drunk, I took him home, everybody is going to say it was my fault, we made out, I didn't mean for it to lead to sex, but who will believe me". So for legal purposes and for the way she feels, it could very easily be rape to her.
Which is why we need a lot of education of young guys that no = no.
Anyway, glad this didn't get locked, good discussion going on.
Your stats don't work. Thats per year, and as noted reported in a specific category (and its wiki). Other stats show much, much higher levels.
They could still work though. If we go with 1% each year, then it wouldn't be that hard to get to 25% over 30-40 years.
d-usa wrote: According to the always reliable statistics found on Wikipedia the 2010 rate for rape in the United States is 27.3 per 100,000 of the population. (I would assume that 100,000 counts both men and women, so it the majority of rapes are male on female then you could probably imply that the rate is actually higher if you only take women into consideration.)
Now other statistics say that between 75-95% of rapes go unreported, and if that is correct then we have a number that is not looking very pretty and we could end up with 400-500 rapes per 100,000 of the population, which is still only 0.5% of people. Now even if you assume that almost all rapes are male on female and that half the population is female that would "only" end up with 1% of the population getting raped if you try to adjust the numbers for women and unreported rapes.
But then other statistics and studies at colleges come up with anywhere between 10-25% of women reporting being raped at some point in their lives, and another study found that 4.7% experienced rape or attempted rape each year. Which is a very different number than the rapes/100,000 people. Of course statistics are very hard to make sense of sometimes, and methods can lead to very different results.
Other studies find that 1 out of 6 women will experience some form of sexual assault, including childhood abuse. Which should make us wonder how something like this could be this prevalent. Does this include women who feel like they have been assaulted? Almost 50% of rapes involve alcohol by both parties, so while things might have gotten hot and steamy the woman could easily be quietly saying "no....no..." and the guy just keeps going. Which could easily result in a woman not reporting it because she 'knows' that "I was drunk, I took him home, everybody is going to say it was my fault, we made out, I didn't mean for it to lead to sex, but who will believe me". So for legal purposes and for the way she feels, it could very easily be rape to her.
Which is why we need a lot of education of young guys that no = no.
Anyway, glad this didn't get locked, good discussion going on.
Your stats don't work. Thats per year, and as noted reported in a specific category (and its wiki). Other stats show much, much higher levels.
They could still work though. If we go with 1% each year, then it wouldn't be that hard to get to 25% over 30-40 years.
I think that part of the problem with believing that 25% of women have reported sexual assault could be that when we think "rape" we think of the classical violent rape that is often seen in the movies.
And while I am sure that this form of rape does happen way too often, rape is also any unwanted and forced sexual contact even if it is not violent.
d-usa wrote: I think that part of the problem with believing that 25% of women have reported sexual assault could be that when we think "rape" we think of the classical violent rape that is often seen in the movies.
And while I am sure that this form of rape does happen way too often, rape is also any unwanted and forced sexual contact even if it is not violent.
d-usa wrote: I think that part of the problem with believing that 25% of women have reported sexual assault could be that when we think "rape" we think of the classical violent rape that is often seen in the movies.
And while I am sure that this form of rape does happen way too often, rape is also any unwanted and forced sexual contact even if it is not violent.
I would argue forced sexual contact is by definition violent, even if it doesn't involve bludgeoning, knives or a gun. As it is a physical act that violates another person's body.
d-usa wrote: I think that part of the problem with believing that 25% of women have reported sexual assault could be that when we think "rape" we think of the classical violent rape that is often seen in the movies.
And while I am sure that this form of rape does happen way too often, rape is also any unwanted and forced sexual contact even if it is not violent.
I would argue forced sexual contact is by definition violent, even if it doesn't involve bludgeoning, knives or a gun. As it is a physical act that violates another person's body.
Why on earth would I be trolling? I have a wife and a daughter. I have no interest in the stat being high, indeed, it would be an epic wish it were low (better nonexistent). I'd pull stats but am at work.
No offence intended, of course. I apologise if that seemed rude.
If the incidence of happy sexual relations is several orders of magnitude higher than the incidence of rape, and the incidence of rape is several orders of magnitude above the incidence of false rape accusation, then men have little to worry about.
Depends on the statistics though. US reports pop 20% - 25% of women have reported being raped in their lives. Thats a big damn number.
Source?
In fact lets have everyone POST SOURCES FOR YOUR STATISTC’S!
Why the feth are people trying to build factual arguments around numbers that may/may not have been pulled from someone’s arse?
Not trying to single you out frazz... well I sort of did anyway... no offense
Ouze wrote: I think I get what he was trying to say, and phrased it awkwardly. I think it's a tempest in a teapot, and worlds away from what Todd Akin said.
In fact lets have everyone POST SOURCES FOR YOUR STATISTC’S!
Why the feth are people trying to build factual arguments around numbers that may/may not have been pulled from someone’s arse?
A range of studies have found results like these. Just go look up rape on the CDC website. The issue is that the definition of 'rape' in these studies is particularly loose. It isn't restricted to physical force leading to penetration (which is much more rare), but will generally include inappropriate touching or heavy coercion. Now, telling a girl you'll take her home in a minute so you can keep putting the hard word on her is a douche thing to do, but including in the category rape is really misleading.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Depends on the statistics though. US reports pop 20% - 25% of women have reported being raped in their lives. Thats a big damn number.
We've talked about that number before, and how it's categorising of rape is really misleading.
Simply put, it is not a one in four chance that a woman you know will at some point be physically forced into having sex. But it is a one in four chance that some point they will be touched inappropriately, or have someone attempt to use heavy coercion to have sex with them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vulcan wrote: And rape statistics are especially suspect, given how many victims never report the crime out of fear of what the justice system will do to them.
Hence the famous line 'rape victims seeking justice instead get victimized twice.'
It isn't good, but things are improving, and reporting rates are believed to be slowly increasing as a result. Police culture in particular is now much improved.
