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.
I repeat, again
, that none of what you said above, in your opening post, is true.
You weren't referring to either the NCVS or the CDC, and you never identified that alleged single study where you were drawing your bogus, and inaccurate, statements from.
You are going to accept the results of any study that supports your preconceived notions and reject any study that challenges them
You're talking about yourself, not about me.
You've yet to provide any study that challenges that 1 in 5 number you came up with--or the 1 in 6 number that RAINN cites (which includes both completed and attempted rapes). In fact, you've yet to provide any studies--you initially claimed you couldn't find any--and then, after I provided you with some, you resorted to pure BS, like claiming the CDC is "politically motivated" to skew their sexual assault statistics, again without providing valid objective information to back that up.
Given the underreporting of rapes and sexual assaults, what we know may only be the tip of the iceberg.
You're the one who started this thread by making false claims and statements. You're the one who should be obligated to defend what you said in your OP.
I'm not going to waste any more time with your nonsense. I have no "preconceived notions" about rape statistics, but you apparently do, even though you can't support your assertions in any way. Starting a thread with lies, as you did, really does nothing for your credibility.