1 in 5 women get raped?

What is wrong with a balanced discussion based on facts, rather than dogma and propaganda?

What is wrong with a balanced discussion based on facts, rather than dogma and propaganda?

The "1 in 5" figure being thrown around is scientific fiction.

The number is based on a flawed study in many aways.

1. The study was done one time, with no follow up.
2. The sample was taken from a very limited population (students on two college campuses) that was not representative of the society at large.
3. The study had a very low response rate. This greatly increases uncertainty because if people who were assaulted are more likely to respond to the study then the numbers are inaccurate. It isn't unreasonable to think that people who were victimized might be more likely to respond and people who weren't victims would be more likely to ignore it.
4. A woman would be counted as part of the 20% if someone had "rubbed up against her" in a sexual way.

In a victory for survivors of rape and their advocates, the Attorney General announced a newly revised definition of rape for nationwide data collection, ensuring that rape will be more accurately reported nationwide.

The change sends an important message to all victims that what happens to them matters, and to perpetrators that they will be held accountable. It was because of the voices of survivors, advocates, law enforcement personnel and many others that FBI Director Robert Mueller was able to make this important change within the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report (UCR) Summary Reporting System (SRS).

“Forcible rape” had been defined by the UCR SRS as “the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will.” That definition, unchanged since 1927, was outdated and narrow. It only included forcible male penile penetration of a female vagina.

The new definition is:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

For the first time ever, the new definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men. It also recognizes that rape with an object can be as traumatic as penile/vaginal rape. This definition also includes instances in which the victim is unable to give consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.

Furthermore, because many rapes are facilitated by drugs or alcohol, the new definition recognizes that a victim can be incapacitated and thus unable to consent because of ingestion of drugs or alcohol. Similarly, a victim may be legally incapable of consent because of age. The ability of the victim to give consent must be determined in accordance with individual state statutes. Physical resistance is not required on the part of the victim to demonstrate lack of consent.

The UCR is the national “report card” on serious crime; what gets reported through the UCR is how we, collectively, view crime in this country. Police departments submit data on reported crimes and arrests to the UCR SRS. Even though most states have more expansive definitions of rape in their criminal codes, they had to report the smaller number of crimes falling under the more narrow UCR SRS definition. This meant that the statistics that were reported nationally were both inaccurate and undercounted.

Because the new definition is more inclusive, reported crimes of rape are likely to increase. This does not mean that rape has increased, but simply that it is more accurately reported. In addition, the UCR program will also collect data based on the historical definition of rape, enabling law enforcement to track consistent trend data until the statistical differences between the old and new definitions are more fully understood.

The new UCR SRS definition of rape does not change Federal or state criminal codes or impact charging and prosecution on the Federal, State or local level, it simply means that rape will be more accurately reported nationwide.

Rape is clearly an important issue. We should certainly be having a public discussion to address it and to make campus and society at large more safe.

What is wrong with a balanced discussion based on facts, rather than dogma and propaganda?

Try educating yourself by reading one of the most recent and ongoing national surveys--which disputes all of your assertions-- and then critique what you see as the methodological flaws in this study.

How many people have you had vaginal, oral, or anal sex with after they pressured you by…

• doing things like telling you lies, making promises about the future they knew were untrue, threatening to end your relationship, or threatening to spread rumors about you?
• wearing you down by repeatedly asking for sex, or showing they were unhappy?
• using their influence or authority over you, for example, your boss or your teacher?

The people who actually measure crime statistics (and don't include lying to get sex as part of the definition of rape) come up with a much lower number. But they probably don't have the same political motivation to inflate statistics.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245

What is wrong with a balanced discussion based on facts, rather than dogma and propaganda?

The "1 in 5" figure being thrown around is scientific fiction.

The number is based on a flawed study in many aways.

1. The study was done one time, with no follow up.
2. The sample was taken from a very limited population (students on two college campuses) that was not representative of the society at large.
3. The study had a very low response rate. This greatly increases uncertainty because if people who were assaulted are more likely to respond to the study then the numbers are inaccurate. It isn't unreasonable to think that people who were victimized might be more likely to respond and people who weren't victims would be more likely to ignore it.
4. A woman would be counted as part of the 20% if someone had "rubbed up against her" in a sexual way.

By this standard (repeatedly asking for sex) I am a rape victim.

You think the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) are more accurate than the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)? Rolling Eyes

The percentage of reported rape or sexual assault victimizations that resulted in an arrest either at the scene or during a follow-up investigation decreased from 47 percent in 1994-98 to 31 percent in 2005-10. Overall, out of the 283,200 annual average rape or sexual assault victimizations in 2005-10, both reported and not reported to the police, approximately 12 percent resulted in an arrest.

maxdancona wrote:

By this standard (repeatedly asking for sex) I am a rape victim.

You're definitely a victim of something.

This is significantly lower than the CDC report. The reason is obvious.

- The NCVS survey asks, "were you the victim of rape or sexual assault"?

- The CDC survey asks, "did someone repeatedly bother you to have sex with them"?