1 in 5 women get raped?

Hawkeye it would seems that having five percents of the world population and twenty-five percents of the world prison population is not good enough for some.

Sexual assaults/rapes are not "sexual disputes"--they are crimes--and the law professor, and former prosecutor, who wrote that article, is far more familiar with the law and constitutionality than you are. The law is a perfectly appropriate tool to deal with criminal assaults, but, as she points out, only when it's enforced, and, since you failed to notice, she does offer "a fix" and cites a specific example where it appears to be working.

Colleges are ill equipped to handle and adjudicate felony sexual assaults/rapes, serious crimes, the criminal justice system isn't, but, as she suggests, they need to improve how they go about doing that, so they are more receptive and supportive of the campus claimants who come to them. As Sen. Gillibrand said this past week, the ultimate goal of the campus programs should be to get 100% of the sexual assault/rape complaints reported to the police.

DOJ Debunks WH’s Stats on College Rape, Will Media Report?

Are 1 in 5 undergrad college-age women raped in the USA, as feminists, the media and even the White House says? Not so much.

A new report, ironically from the White House’s own Department of Justice, reveals that number is significantly lower than the media and the administration had reported previously.

Instead of a whopping 20 percent of female college freshmen and sophomores, the new, more expansive stats put that number at just 0.61 percent – or 6.1 per 1,000 students.

Even more ironic, the study found that college females are less likely to be sexually assaulted than their unenrolled female peers. These findings are a serious blow to the feminist left’s assertion that an “epidemic” of rape grips college campuses. This, combined with the fast-unraveling Rolling Stone story about the University of Virginia and Lena Dunham’s questionable (to put it kindly) allegation against “Barry One” at Oberlin College, makes it a very bad month for the rape panic industry.

And 2014 had started so promising, too. President Obama launched the “White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault,” which he and Vice President Biden subsequently promoted several times throughout the year, always citing the misleading 1 in 5 stat. Celebrities even appeared in a PSA campaign called “It’s On Us” in September which also cited the statistic. NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and PBS all have run the misleading stats in recent broadcasts and it’s been adopted by women’s rights activists all across the country. But where did this number come from?

The oft-cited number comes from just a singular source – a 2007 small-scale study called “The Campus Sexual Assault Study” done by the National Institute of Justice, a division of the Justice Department. The study polled just two universities, over the course of just under three years. Data was gathered through an online survey that took just 15 minutes to complete. The questions asked about things like if they’d been subjected to “forced kissing.” If the answer was, "Yes," the researchers – not the women themselves – qualified that as a sexual assault. The 5,446 undergraduate women who participated were provided a $10 Amazon gift card, as reported by The Washington Examiner.

Despite the obvious flaws in the study, the numbers proved too dramatic for the left and the media to pass up.

Amazingly, even the authors of this study admitted that the media and activists have misused their findings to broadly apply its meaning. They told Slate:

‘We don’t think one in five is a nationally representative statistic.’” It couldn’t be, he said, because his team sampled only two schools. “‘In no way does that make our results nationally representative,’” Krebs said. And yet President Obama used this number to make the case for his sweeping changes in national policy.

Unlike the 2007 study, the newly released report by the Department of Justice called the “National Crime and Victimization Survey” (NCVS) gathered data over a much longer time period,1995-2013. Encouragingly, this study finds there has been a downward trend of rape on college campuses since 1997, as The Federalist points out. The NCVS study stated, “For the period 2007-13, the NCVS victimization rate was 4.7 per 1,000 for females ages 18 to 24 who were enrolled in post-secondary schools.”

The study also found that ironically, female college students fare better when it comes to the chance of being sexually assaulted, than their unenrolled peers do. “The rate of rape and sexual assault was 1.2 times higher for nonstudents than for students,” according to the study.

So what will the media do with this new information? If it defeats the left’s favorite statistics and undercuts a fear-mongering agenda it most likely will be ignored.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kristine-marsh/2014/12/12/doj-debunks-whs-stats-college-rape-will-media-report

We are slow learners. 40 years into the war on drugs we are only just now getting queasy about the result. The war on mens sexuality will go no better.

Classic illustration: it is common knowledge that it is men who are the pursuers in sex. The law is organized so that unappreciated advance is a criminal matter. But how is a man supposed to know if an advance is desired until he tries it?

Answer: He cant. The law is set up to make the man wrong any time a woman decides to make him wrong. The law is unfair. Any state that writes unfair law on purpose as ours does is committing suicide.

One does not preclude the other.

LOGIC FAIL

hawkeye, don't you understand? The definition of "crime" is decided by the accuser, not the accused.

"THINGS ARE WAY BETTER THAN THEY WERE DECADES AGO, WE HAVE BEEN SEEING CONTINUAL PROGRESS IN ENDING SEXUAL ASSAULT BOTH ON CAMPUS AND OFF SINCE THE EARLY 80'S, BUT WE HAVE SUCH A SERIOUS HEALTH EMERGENCY THAT WE NEED TO DEEP SIX THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF MEN RIGHT NOW!" does not sell very well.

Thus the lie was employed.

I do understand, I reported years ago that the feminist position is that if a woman feels like she has been sexually wronged then she has been. What actually happened, and his feelings, are both irrelevant.

Even though the department of justice is reporting that rape statistics are overblown, firefly will still somehow deny that we live in a culture that unfairly demonizes men.

Firefly's claims to not be a feminist get murky when she refuses to refute their gibberish, and when she has a long record at A2K of being as allergic to the truth as they are.

How about asking first? Isn't that the point of "Yes means Yes"?

The adult home owner, who raped a demented resident in her mid-90's, shouldn't have known whether his sexual contacts were desired or not until he tried it? That was an acquaintance rape. The woman was too cognitively impaired to consent and she was selected for her vulnerability.

The frat boy who rapes an incapacitated female, he's just met, and made sure consumed enough alcohol to knock her out, or significantly cloud her consciousness, shouldn't know whether his sexual contacts are desired or not, until he tries it? That's an acquaintance rape. The woman was too impaired to consent and she was selected because of her vulnerability.

The executive who was just convicted of drugging and raping a woman in a hotel room, put the woman, he had met on a dating site, into a vulnerable state where she could not resist--do you think he even cared whether his sexual contacts were desired or not?

Sexual predators, that small group of men that commit most of the rapes, don't care about consent, and they don't care whether their sexual contacts are wanted or not.

There is no "war on mens sexuality"--most men don't rape, they are able to recognize when certain types of contact are unwanted by verbal or behavioral feedback from the partner, and they pay attention to it, and they don't want to force contact on an unwilling partner, or a partner who is not aware of what she's doing. And, they know enough to ask whether a type of contact is desired.

The law goes after the sexual predators who ignore consent.

You confuse "mens sexuality" with the way you operate. Even back in high school, you apparently tried to get young females drunk, fast, by spiking punch with particularly high octane alcohol, to chemically alter their inhibitions, reduce their resistance, and make it easier for you to get into their panties. Even back then, you were a predator, Hawkeye, and you still think like one.

The law defines criminal behaviors--it's not the woman who makes him wrong, it's his own behavior that makes him wrong, when it violates the law. It's the state, not the woman, that lodges charges and prosecutes, when they believe a law has been violated.

The law is not "unfair"--it's designed to deter and punish rapes, rapes of both males and females, but it's hardly surprising that you, in particular, would see that as "unfair", given your own predatory predilections.

No. I will do as men have always done, I will grab for a tit and if I dont get my hand slapped away I will keep going.


I submit that 99% of the humans who have ever walked the Earth did not agree with the feminists that a verbal yes before making a sexual move was required, or should be. And I dont think that the feminists improve sex or intend to, in fact I think they dont like sex and would like to discourage the practice.

We do make a move on the woman, and stop if she objects. You will notice however that the laws are written to criminalize contact if the woman claims that she did not want it, which does in fact criminalize normal human male sexuality. Let me repeat, the law not only criminalizes forcing contact after objection, it criminalizes the normal process of a male requesting sex from a female.

Who's the "We"? You definitely do not speak for all men, or even most men--and most male posters at A2K have made that abundantly clear to you.

I don't know which laws you're referring to--the criminal laws of your state don't say any such thing, and neither do mine. Nowhere does the law criminalize the normal behavior of someone (be they male or female) simply requesting sexual contact from another adult. In fact, the "Yes means Yes" standards of consent require that sort of request before contact is made. In the alcohol fueled hook-up culture on a college campus, getting a yes in advance of sexual contacts makes a lot of sense, so there is no confusion about consent, and whether, "No really means yes".

Again, who's the "WE"? If that were actually the case, there would be no rapes--neither stranger rapes nor acquaintance rapes. Do you also have a bridge in Brooklyn you'd like to sell me?.

"Grab for the tit"? Boy, do you lack finesse . That is not doing it " as men have always done"--certainly not the ones past 15 or 16 years old, certainly not the ones who know how to arouse or seduce a woman. You definitely do not speak for most men. But a tit grab won't find you facing a rape charge anywhere. At most it's unwanted touching.

What do you want to be able to legally do, just grab strange women in the supermarket, kiss and "grab a tit", as a "request" and then find out whether they'll smack you in the face and call the cops?

And, if she's not fully conscious and aware, and able to knowingly freely willingly consent, and physically able to resist, you shouldn't even think about initiating contact with her--unless you want to risk a sexual assault/rape charge in your state. And make sure she's also alive, sex with a corpse is illegal, and I'm sure you think that's "unfair" too.

Sounds like rape to me. Even if it doesn't fit a narrow, legalistic definition of the crime, it's still despicable. Certainly nothing to be proud of.



Nononono, choosing guys like hawkeye to be your allies is akin to a political conservative asking former KKK leader David Duke to represent the conservative side in a debate on the pros and cons of affirmative action. Talk about self-defeating!

It's a matter of credibility. When you choose allies like hawkeye, you don't help your cause at all. Good luck!

In an era that trys to pretend that all aspects of use of power in sex is despicable, sure.

Speak for yourself. There is no war on sexuality. The only thing that's changed is people are now taking victims seriously.

You're not a martyr, or a prophet, just a very nonsensical boy.

You DO realize that you are now directly contradicting the feminists....

What feminists? There's loads of different views within feminism, like a lot of thinking. Your mindset is like that of George Bush's when he couldn't conceive that there was a difference between Sunni and Shia Islam. Similarly, your mind cannot conceive of Feminism as anything other than one homogenous entity. What I'm saying may contradict your world view, but reality does that.

The simple fact of the matter is that vulnerable women and children who were abused by rich and powerful men were not believed at the time, but they are now. The conviction of Ray Teret proves as much.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-30350179

The media will report it the same way they reported the guns purchased without a background check story. They won't. They will continue to allow a false premise to be talked about and used as political ammo.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/