1 in 5 women get raped?

Was it one you read real quick?

I'm betting it was deep deep Intellectual .

https://able2know.org/topic/400659-1#post-6468901

You know that people are really clever when they spell 'intellectual' with a capital I in the middle of a sentence. Incidentally, was it Hermann Goering who said "When I hear the word 'intellectual' I reach for my Luger"?

Rape claims almost always results in victim shaming and countered with claims of consensual atm and victims inviting event by appearances or actions. Rape admittance shades victims as socially unacceptable and tainted individuals. Rape surveys are typically grossly understated as most victims shy away admitting they were raped. Ethnicity, residency, martial status also affects honesty. Based on convos with friends it is closer to 45%. I was raped three times and never reported or publicsized under my real name to avoid the stigma it would cause. One rapist blackmailed with photos of me being raped to gain three repeat performances in a seedy hotel with him and two friends.

One interesting factor is the changes in how we now define sexual assault and rape in the last few generations.

Watch a few black and white romance comedies from the 1940s to 1950s to see how actions that we would now define as criminal was just part of the normal pursue between a man and a woman.

This is an old thread... now reawakened.

My point in this thread was that ideological beliefs often take the place of quantifiable facts. People tend to accept any report that supports their beliefs and ignore any evidence that doesn't fit.

In this case, the unbiased research doesn't support this conclusion that 20% of women are raped. Even the people who wrote the often cited studies admit that their studies don't really support this claim.

People believe this claim as "truth", even though objective evidence doesn't support it, because it supports their preexisting beliefs.

This point isn't about rape, it is about ideology.

Your biased reporting is proof of what you assert, re ideology, because you poo poo the facts to get your point across.

I view facts as objective. In order to find the facts, you have to look at the all the evidence, including the evidence that contradicts what you want to believe. You have to question both. I have found that some facts support liberal arguments and some facts support conservative arguments. They are still facts.

Facts have nothing to do with the person saying them. If Donald Trump, or Hillary Clinton, or Dan Spencer or Louis Farrakhan or any other person you despise says a fact... it it still a fact. When you make personal attacks to make your argument, you are not arguing facts.

I think you and I view "facts" in a very different way.