@momofthreeboys My good old days comment wasn’t directed at you, although I should have been a little clearer.
In relation to the studies being discussed, it’s difficult to contend that “have you ever been made to have sexual intercourse through the use of force or threat of force” is nebulous or not-criminal. I presume you’re just talking about nebulous accusations in general - quite frankly, I think that these exist, but I’m sure you’d agree that their existence can also be used as an excuse by some people to dismiss cases that aren’t nebulous.
The 3% is not the chance of being raped in a year. It is the chance of being raped in one year by someone other than an intimate partner. If you add in being forcibly raped by an intimate partner-- in other words if you compare apples to apples-- the Congo numbers are way way bigger. Please be accurate.
I still don’t understand northwesty’s “it’s sounds really bad so it can’t be true” reasoning, but holy christ, that has to be one of the most disturbing statistics I’ve ever seen.
(The one that’s even worse is the 33% affirmative to “would you force a woman to have sex with you”)
I think the colleges should forgo hiring investigators and prosecutors and hire lawyers and counselors. When an accuser notifies the college of an assault, the lawyer goes with the accuser to the police department to help file the claim and watch out for the accusers legal rights. The counselors can help the student sort out their feelings. The police are going to investigate, the courts are going to presume innocent until proven guilty and the accused will have an experience that theoretically doesn’t trounce on their due process. The parents will know their kiddos have access to a lawyer and a therapist of they are going to file an accusation. Money better spent since “we” are the very people that are going to pay for the staff the college is going to hire and it adds some job slots for the unemployed lawyers
I particularly like (as in, find a gruesome humor in) the two statistics from that survey. “Would you force a woman to have sex with you if you could get away with it?” 30% yes. “Would you rape a woman?” 15% yes. [numbers from memory, not exact]
Right. Because there is some way to force a woman to have sex with you that isn’t rape.
@“Cardinal Fang” I would have assumed they’d respond the opposite way - that some guys would be willing to rape a girl with drugs but not to force them physically to have sex.
Honestly, that 30% would-you-rape figure is so frightening I’m inclined to tell myself it’s a fabrication. Except that there have been multiple studies corroborating it. It’s really, really terrifying, and I’m saying this as a guy who doesn’t really fear being raped that much.
Just like the author of one of the most quoted articles on the other end of the spectrum admits his study is flawed. I quoted his response earlier in either this thread or the Men Fight Back Thread. Off the top of my head I want to say it was Lisak that admitted his survey numbers were probably off.
No, because I have never said the numbers were correct. I think both are off. How the numbers play out will depend totally on the types of questions that they ask and how they ask them.
I will start by saying that I think the distribution of rapes is pretty low for stranger rapes (but still too high). I think that a large percentage of “rapes/sexual assaults” are more grey area issues.
Will they include positive answers to questions like this?
I don’t like that question because it can be interpreted in too many ways. If a guy threatens to break up with a girl if she does not sleep with him he is an (alternate word for donkey). He is not a rapist, when she says yes. They need to ask if the person physically threatened them.
If they ask something like
they are going to get a much higher response ratio that if they ask
they will get a much lower rate.
I think a huge percentage of cases fall into that area where some people would say it is a grey area, but I would not.
I will give you one last example of what I mean by that, as well as answer a question you asked a day or so ago.
The more I think about it the more I am convinced that Jane Doe was not even close to a grey area. Her actions at 3 am might have been close to a grey area but we don’t have enough data to say for sure. Her actions at midnight were not even close to incapacitated. The California code says that a person is incapacitated when: because of drugs or alcohol etc they are unable to consent because they don’t understand
There is absolutely no denying that someone who asks her partner if they have a condom completely understands the nature and quality of the act. This more black and white than salt and pepper. She was not incapacitated.
Those are the kind of incidents that might get the new survey up to a 1 in 5 number. It won’t mean that the # is accurate.
What are the NCVS numbers? I found the 6.1 and 7.6 per 1000 figures for college and non college women but I could not see if those were yearly figures or total figures
