Rape Threats and Free Speech

According to RAINN, there is an average of 207,754 victims (not occurrences) of sexual assault per year in the US. If the 1 in 4 "statistic" was accurate, that would mean there are approximately 1,567,500 victims enrolled in four year college annually. Don't apply emotion to numbers. Studies have been shown that the methods of gathering the data for the 1 in 4 statistic are highly inaccurate and skewed to fit an agenda

 

[MENTION=53984]Garball[/MENTION]: Why do you assume I am applying emotion and by default 'overestimating'? This in itself is evident of prejudice towards women ('she must be 'emotional' about this issue because she is a woman') or advocates of rape survivors, I know this because I have a lot of experience working with these people. Perhaps it is you who is guided by emotion to seek the most conservative figures and hail them as more accurate? I am not saying that's what you did, but your comment can be applied to you also.

I am familiar with long term research in this area, and the most robust data from all corners of the world (and over several decades) consistently indicate that between 75 and 95% of all rape crimes aren't reported. The 1 in 4 statistic is even optimistic because it is suspected (based on observation, counselling data as well as studies) that most women will experience some form of sexual assault or harrassement during their lifetimes (in Western societies) and in some societies, all of them will.

To speak of 'inflated statistics' is misguided and irresponsible. However, there's loads of misguided opinions, policies and attitudes to rape crimes, and these will often rely on survivor's silence, police decisions on whether to, or (much more likely) not to prosecute, re-defining what rape actually is and studies conducted in specific cohorts thus excluding people at higher risk (eg. they'll study college students and not migrant population, low socioeconomic groups etc, where the incidence is much higher).

Since true incidence can not be known, only estimated, even the most 'outrageously high' estimate is conservative. Unless you think that woman can't be trusted to know when she's been assaulted, which I hope isn't the case.

 

To the first bolded statement: sadly, that's not true. In all reality, it just takes a misunderstanding. Here's what I mean by that, I'll give two distinct situations:

(1) Man believes he's being mr. suave. The woman says no and he backs off, only to pursue again in a few minutes. She goes to move out of the bed, and he puts his arm on her. He doesn't even realize that she was actually trying to get out of bed. At this point, she now believes that she's being told by physical action that she "will" stay in the bed, and from this point on, she relinquishes control not because she wants to, but because everything is now being interpreted through this new lens of physical force. In her mind, and for all intents and purposes, in her reality, she's been raped. For him? No intention whatsoever, and no idea that he's put her in that spot. Do I believe this is common? No, I thought more often than not, the guy tries to "convince" the girl, and she finally says yes because she feels threatened somehow. IMO, this is the exact issue that happened with Ben Roethlisberger in Georgia.

(2) Guy and girl go out and she gets drunk (he provided the alcohol). They go back to her dorm and start getting a little busy. She says no and he backs off. She actually gets sick, and he helps her through it. A little while later, she's feeling better and encourages him. They have sex. Since however, she was still under the influence, when she sobers up, she feels taken advantage of, hence, rape, because he provided the alcohol. BTW, this was an actual court case, and he was found guilty. Oh, and follow up, she shut down over the following days and weeks, exhibiting classic signs of rape (I say that carefully, because there really isn't a pattern set for everyone. Some will react one way, others the exact opposite).

Everyone thinks of Ted Bundy or Kevin Coe or some other lunatic when it comes to rape. The reality is very different, and IMO, probably fifty percent of the time, it's a situation like above. The end result however, is the exact same.

To the second bolded statement: I absolutely agree, and think that is both the situation when it comes to the threats, and also the situation when it comes to actually being raped, which is why I have to disagree that the percentage in both populations you mention above are so low. There, again IMO, much higher.

 

Double post.

 

[MENTION=35110]jazzabel[/MENTION] - I'm trying my best to stay open minded about everything, but when people start bringing out numbers I have to do my own research and it does not look like the numbers are adding up. We are talking about rape, a violent crime second only to murder (some would say right on par with it). Even if only a fraction of such a horrific acts was reported, it seems like there would be more public awareness.

However, that previous sentence is an opinion. What is not an opinion is that Detroit had a crime rate of 2,400 per 100,000 citizens (2.4%) in 2007. That crime rate is based on violent crimes including murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. That means the projected 1 in 4 sexual assaults on women in college is 10 times worse per capita than all violent crime in the Detroit metro area. In a city of 4M, that is a 96,000 crime umbrella covering murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. There are twice as many women enrolled in four year college than the total population of the Detroit metro area. According to the 1 in 4 study first published in Ms. magazine (1987), there should be 2,000,000 sexual assaults where, in the case of rape, completed rape will outnumber attempted rape 3:2. These numbers compared state the projected occurrence of sexual assault on four year college campuses is actually 21 X greater than all violent crime in Detroit.

In 2007, there were 92K reported rapes in the U.S. as defined by the forced carnal knowledge of a woman against her will
There were 248K reported sexual assaults which included the above definition in addition to anal, oral and statutory rape; incest; rape with an object, finger or fist; rape of men.

If only 10 percent of sexual assault cases are reported, we have to multiply all reported cases in the U.S. by 10 to have enough to cover the sexual assaults that are said occur on four year college campuses.

Maybe, there is a hidden bias in my brain, but looking at these comparisons leads me to believe that with the negative stigma of sexual crimes and the press that would result from only a fraction of actual reported cases, the estimated number of sexual assaults on college campus is highly inflated.

 

You are comparing numbers that may be using different definitions.

If you define sexual assault as (from Wiki):

then I have no problem accepting the 1 in 4 women statistic. When I mentioned my 3 incidents I forgot I was also groped twice, once in the US and once in Mexico. Look at the current brouhaha with San Diego's mayor tonguing and slobbering on his female staff, and not to start a political debate but I'm sure if SCOTUS Justice Thomas didn't sexually harass Anita Hill, plenty of other judges have sexually harassed plenty of other employees.

I don't get it, frankly. The Weiner sexting, a mayor telling a staff member to take her underwear off, groping, I really don't get groping, how can that possibly be a turn on? And when you add in the abundance of rape threats on social media, it all bewilders me. But I'm female and I'm sure it's just a guy thing I don't get.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe for an instant that the majority of men are sexually perverted. But I don't have a problem believing the proportion is significant if you use a broad definition of sexual assault.

 

[MENTION=53984]Garball[/MENTION]: You are doing research on Google, I worked with these issues for over a decade. Problem with 'reported' statistics is that nobody knows exactly what percentage is reported, it is deduced by comparing to other sources. Also, 1 in 4 refers to "at least once in a woman's lifetime" not "every year". Yearly stats of city of Detroit really don't have much to do with the overall incidence, it's just reported crimes in one city in one year.

There's a great individual police bias all over the world, only beginning to be addressed in recent years. This has lead to many complaints being dismissed and never processed. But from various other sources of evidence which are even more credible because they come from refuge centres, therapists, rape crisis centres etc, so women feel free to report without fear of repercussions (there's a severe consequence of reporting a rape, and survivors are assaulted once more by the legal system, which is the main reason why women don't bother reporting it most of the time), the figure of "up to 95% go unreported" comes from.

You keep talking about "violent crime". Vast majority of rapes are done quietly, with no bruises or visible violence, and this is the second reason why victims are taunted - it wasn't violent enough hence, it wasn't really rape. Re-defining rape has a lot to do with underreporting and low stats compared to reality. Perhaps you need to read many more studies, case studies, analyse various statistics in different countries, not just US or one city in the US, in order to fully understand these stats and how mentality and other factors influence numbers. These things take time, and having researched it for a bit on Google really doesn't give you any real knowledge or understanding of the issue, because it is very complex. Rape is also vastly more common than murder and even robbery.

However, just like with victims of genocide, many different sources will have wildly varying numbers, still, it in no way affects the outcome for the victims or impact on society. If you are looking for reasons of poor awareness, it is not because 'rape stats are overinflated and it really isn't such a problem anymore'. Far from it. You need to look at the tabooisation, the enforced silence for the victims, ostricization in society (rape victims are dreadfully treated, it's implied that they must be "mentally unstable and damaged'' just because they were raped and most women hide it in order to keep their jobs and a place in society). Also look at shameful lack of legal repercussions for rapists (only 1-3% of all rapists are ever convicted, and then, the average sentence is something like 18 months, for a crime that destroyed a woman's life, and will destroy many more when he gets out, smarter about how to not get caught next time. Rapists have the highest recidivism rate, which means that almost universally, they re-offend. Look at stigmatisation, look at bad police practices, look at misogynist attitudes in justice system, and if after all that something still 'doesn't add up' then perhaps you might be right. But I have worked with this for a long time, and I know the reality of the situation, so I'm pretty confident you'd get to know it too.

I feel like I'm 'educating' at best and 'lecturing' at the lest. I don't really won't to do either. If you want to understand this issue, please educate yourself about it. But remember, how much effort you put into it, that;s how robust your knowledge and info will be. And if you only looked up a couple of studies in one afternoon, then your knowledge isn't really adequate to be disputing reputable sources and stats. I hope you can see what I mean

 

I am using the FBI's definition of rape http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/additional-ucr-publications/ucr_handbook.pdf
and
numbers from National Crime Victimization Survey for sexual assault based on definitions found here http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317

We are comparing the same numbers

 

So using that data, how do you sort out 'simple assault' that is sexual in nature from other simple assaults?

They give this as one example of simple assault:

How many people get sexually offensive emails that don't have threats of violence or do but aren't reported? And is the restraining order required here for this to be assault?

So many incidents are not going to reach that level of the data base. 'Ten times as many incidents not reported' has to be a gross understatement.


I'm not suggesting every guy who inappropriately touches a gal (or vice versa) should be convicted of a crime, the court system would be overwhelmed. But people need to be using the same definitions if they are going to be comparing numbers and beliefs in this discussion.

 

[MENTION=35110]jazzabel[/MENTION] -
You completely missed my point in the comparison of the crime rate in Detroit to the 1 in 4 study.
To clarify a couple of things:
I use the terminology "violent crime" because that is what rape is filed under in the legal system.
The 1 in 4 study originally published in 1987 was limited to college experience as conducted by Prof. Mary Koss.

Detroit is world renowned for being a one of the most violent cities in the USA. As violent as Detroit is (allow for underrepresentation of actual statistics here as well), the total reported violent crime there is less than 1/20 than sexual assault (which includes rape) projected by Mary Koss. That is an inaccurate description of the prevalence of rape and sexual assault.

My research includes official crime reports and statistics located on the internet that are also used by the US Government. Would my research be more accepted if I got it at the library. In fact, with all of your experience in the field, I'm sure I read something affected by your involvement. You are not the only person to have worked with rape victims. Can I not be educated by others' published research? Do I have to work at CERN before I can be taught about the Higgs Boson?

I never stated that rape wasn't a problem anymore. When arguing with me, quote me or don't.

I have lived for decades in a city that is 60% Black. Because I am immersed in this demographic, I would have a natural tendency to believe the same or similar could be expected to be applied to larger demographics. However, in reality, Blacks only comprise 13% of the nations population

look at the numbers I am using. They are not hocus-pocus; they are the actual reported numbers versus speculation.

 

I'm not saying that the amount of rapes aren't incredibly high, because they are. As I said before, one rape is too many.

However, we live in a society flooded with gratuitous sex and the vast majority is demeaning or subjugating to women.

It's a double-edged sword unfortunately. Our women are dressing more provocatively and being more sexually promiscuous and our men are taught very early on that women are meant to be sexually subservient. It's a lethal combination.

I read a statistic that said 47% of rapes occur when both parties have been drinking. How can our young women think its smart to dress like a hooker and get drunk with a bunch of guys in a bar? Likewise, why do our young men think its a good idea to get drunk, knowing they will do things they regret?

Drugs, drunkeness, sex, disrespect, immaturity and unrighteousness. It's sad what our society has come to in regard to the younger generation.

It brings to mind what the Bible says about the end times:

Until our country deals with its lack of morality, we will continue to try and heal the symptoms, not the problem. Rape is a symptom.

 

The way I interpret your comment is, that's damn close to blaming the victim with just a tad bit of 'the guy is also at fault' thrown in to cover your ass.

The problem I have with your scenario is, as a woman who very much enjoys sex, I see no reason I shouldn't be able to dress sexy and flirt with guys I choose to be with. That doesn't give any other guy permission to horn in uninvited. The guy who tore my clothes, I think I was only 13. Was it my fault I didn't know any better? Maybe. As for the other events, I ran into abnormal guys but they were the exceptions. I never felt I had to fear all the thousands of men I'd interacted with from high school through college. In case you didn't know, it is acceptable for a woman to go out to a bar. She can enjoy a beer at a party. Why should any woman fear that? Why shouldn't women be free to interact with people socially? I don't know what era you grew up in, but in my era, women are allowed a reasonable degree of freedom. And sex, as long as it is voluntary, is not immoral.

Crude comment follows:

Spoiler

Does someone have to restrain you if you see tits?

Where do you draw the line on "hooker" clothing? I saw a woman in the store yesterday with her face covered. I wanted to tell her how sorry I felt for her but I didn't. Who gets to define "hooker" clothes? Is it one of those, 'you know it if you see it' things? Low cut, tight in the ass? Or does it need heavy face paint and dripping jewelry?

Do you know how many times since Jesus that end times have been predicted based on the loss of morality by society?


BTW, how do you square this immorality you see everywhere with your assessment that rapists are so incredibly rare?

 

I assume that, similarly, mugging happens when people dress to show off their wealth, and the muggers get drunk and are unable to stop themselves from stealing all those tempting watches and jewelry and wallets? Responsible people should reduce crime by dressing to look as poor and shabby as possible, by ensuring that their drinking buddies never see their valuable possessions, because if they did of course they'd beat up their friends and steal them?

If a guy goes out to the bar with his softball buddies, wearing a Rolex, and one of those friends beats him up in the parking lot and takes his watch, do the police tell him that he shouldn't have worn the watch, shouldn't have trusted his friend? Are a lot of ugly questions asked like, "Well, you _wore_ the watch; how was your buddy to know that you didn't want to give it to him? Were you clear? After all, people do give gifts, you know.' Does his social circle sneer at him for "teasing" his friends with the watch, when of course displaying a possession is tantamount to offering to give it away to anyone who asks?

No. It's assumed that unless you very clearly consent to giving away a possession, that possession remains yours. And someone who steals that possession is, I'm pretty sure, in some pretty un-ambiguous legal trouble, legal trouble that doesn't permanently damage the reputation and social standing of the person that he stole the item from.

 

You can interpret it that way if you want. My feelings are that we should abstain from putting ourselves in places of temptation or debauchery. You can't walk through the fire and not expect to get burned.

You wont agree with me, but women should be modest in their clothing for the very reason that we're discussing here. Women dressing sexually is part of the culture that leads to rape.

Just because something is 'acceptable' doesn't make it right. I would never allow my wife to go to a bar and she would never go to one even if she had the opportunity. There are ways to hang out and have a social life without getting half naked and drunk.

No, because the only breasts I see are those of my wife.

Now your just playing games. You know what clothing is modest and what clothing is immodest. Women should cover themselves respectfully, allowing their intimate areas to be saved for their husbands.

No one knows the day or the hour when Jesus will return, but we can see all around us that morals are being cast aside more and more each day. It can't go on forever.

You misquote me, as usual. I said the probability that an anonymous person making Internet threats would actually carry out the threats was statistically low.

Rape isn't the only symptom of our declining moral-less culture. Things like STD's, marriage rates, single mothers, abortion, pornography, infidelity... It all paints a picture of the true world that has been 'released front the shackles of religion.'

 

It's really, really not. Nowhere else in our culture do I see the idea that displaying something that someone wants is wrong. If you display delicious food in a shop window, you're not condemned because a hungry man broke the glass to take it. If you display expensive objects, you're not condemned because a poor man broke the glass to take them. If you park a nice car, you're not condemned when someone whose feet are tired steals it. Sure, the police may advise you that in a given neighborhood it might be good to put bars on that glass shop window, but no one asks you a lot of insinuating questions about your motivations and your consent or lack thereof.

Women have at least as much right to legal protection as property does.

Um...that implies that if you accidentally saw someone else's, you would be unable to restrain yourself. If you are actually saying that - that a normal man cannot be expected to restrain himself if he sees someone in a state of undress - then obviously the conversation is over. If you're not saying that, then you seem to be dodging the question.

There are cultures where it's seen as immodest to show any part of the face. There are plenty of people in the United Stats who feel that a shirt that covers a woman up to the neck, but has no sleeves, is immodest. There are people who think that a skirt that stops just above the knee is positively dowdy, while there are others who feel that such a skirt is shockingly revealing. When bare midriffs were the standard fashion, I knew young women who were quite startled that anyone might see them as inappropriate in the office; they saw them as perfectly modest.

And women should "cover themselves". But should they ensure that they look unattractive? Unappealing? Surely a woman who is covered but nevertheless attractive is...well, attractive. Is she also to blame for rape? If we blame women for attracting male interest, then where's the boundary where we start to hold men responsible for their actions? Is there one, or is it time for us to just cover our faces and bodies entirely and be done with it? At that point, though, it's still clear that that walking mass of drapery is female, so it's still all her fault, right? Do we require escorts? Do we make it a crime for women to leave the home?

Surely it's far more logical for men to be responsible for their own actions. Why is such a simple concept so hard?

 

You are implying that hunger and covetousness is the same as lust, and it is not. We already know that watching porn leads to negative consequences both emotionally and psychologically, the same cannot be said for being hungry or wanting a new car.

They are apples and screwdrivers, not even close.

It's a loaded question, of course to remove the guilt of a woman who dresses provocatively and drinks in excess. My point is that there is guilt on both sides. Women and men should avoid behaving in an unbecoming way

 

Beauty is not the same as sexual. Why is that so difficult a concept to understand?

Honestly I think your reply is a perfect example of the decay in our society. You equate beauty with sex, and attractiveness with lust.

 

Are you saying that a man seeing a beautiful woman, wearing a beautifully fitted but not tight garment that shows off her lovely curves but covers her, a garment that she could quite reasonably wear to meet the First Lady, will _never_ have anything but the purest thoughts about that woman? Or are you saying that when he has impure thoughts, that's the point where his thoughts are his responsibility, and not the woman's?

But if a man can have impure thoughts, and control them, and be held responsible for them if he doesn't control them... why can't he just do that all the time?

 

[MENTION=53984]Garball[/MENTION]: It is very difficult to discuss with someone who knows 'a little bit' about something. It's the same as a patient coming to the doctor and arguing about a diagnosis because they 'researched it thoroughly' on Google. Unfortunately, information does not equal knowledge, and it is where your misunderstanding and lack of appreciation of the bigger picture stem from. I have pointed out some pitfalls in your reasoning, and it'll be a good start if you want to improve your understanding. Like I said, there's a wealth of information out there and if you are interested in this issue, I encourage to give it a year, and to really research it properly

@JJ: You won't hear me arguing against trying to curb general increase of violence and amorality in society. However, the reality is that women in religious environments are at equal risk, as someone drunk at the party. Rape is an ancient crime, no woman is immune. Women who are in wheelchairs get raped, those in a coma, ninety year old women, girls under five, mothers, sisters, teachers, doctors, nurses, homeless, rich, poor, all women are at risk, rape occurs in all socioeconomic backgrounds. Alcohol simply gives more bravado perpetrator needs to act on his impulse. Sometimes girls do make themselves an easy target, but vast majority of rapes are committed by someone a person trusted, in a secure environment where a woman can't predict it at all, such as during a doctor's appointment, a sleepover at friend's house when the boyfriend rapes her in the middle of the night, situations like that are very common. And still, most rapes involve women who didn't get intoxicated deliberately.

You seem to have a common misconception, that a woman can somehow protect herself from rape. Take it from someone who heard countless stories, there's nothing a woman can do to actually keep herself 100% safe. These predators wait for their chance and they get you when you least expect it. And they are acquaintances, friends, colleagues, family members, often men of high social standing, who 'nobody believes could ever do something like that'. This is the ugly reality of rape, that is seldom discussed by anyone other than the survivors, and we already know not many people care what they have to say. Everyone would rather pontificate and argue about numbers, and what was the woman wearing.

Perhaps this is why rape is such a taboo, because people don't want to be reminded that it can easily happen to them too.

 

Well, this makes your argument internally consistent. But I reject the premise that men are slaves to their lusts, unable to muster the intelligence and self-control to resist them. Reproduction and hunger are both survival drives, and hunger will kill you much faster; why would you assume that hunger can be overcome by sweet reason while the other cannot? Really, it's insulting to men; it implies that they shouldn't be out in the world without keepers.

And, no, we really don't know that about porn. You and I could argue for a year about the competing studies, without convincing the other, so that's not a premise that we can both accept for the sake of this argument.

(Uh...wait. _Hunger_ doesn't have negative consequences? You've heard of starvation, yes?)

 

First of all, every person has to answer for there own sins. The man will answer for his and the woman as well. The key difference between you and I is that you believe that a woman who dresses sexually and drinks to excess is 'innocent' and I do not. So we are talking about two separate issues. But I believe that sin leads to death, so I am not surprised when this holds true. Nothing good ever comes from sin, whether it is lustful eyes of a man, or the harlotry of a woman.

Of course it is the responsibility of the man to not drink in excess and not lust in his heart and take advantage of a woman.

But it is also the responsibility of a woman to not place themselves in such a position. (I understand that sometimes men rape people not in bars and who are not drunk, and of course that is 100% the responsibility of that man to answer for his actions.

 

But what abut that beautiful woman, in the utterly respectable but well-fitted dress that covers all standard to-be-covered areas of skin, who nevertheless can be seen to have a lovely figure and a lovely face? The man feels that he is responding to the beauty that she is displaying, feels that she has created and honed that beauty just for him, just as the man watching a half-naked woman in the bar feels. Is the woman in the respectable dress to blame for being beautiful in the man's eyes, when that beauty inspires lustful thoughts?

Edited to add:

After all, the woman is "in a position" where she can be attacked, because there are very few positions where that is impossible. She is there, she is beautiful, she is not utterly defended against attack. How is that different from the bar? Surely she should have just stayed home and, if force to leave the house, arranged to look so ugly that she could not inspire lust in anyone?

 

[MENTION=35110]jazzabel[/MENTION] - I haven't, or at least did not intend to state an opinion that rape and sexual assault are under-reported or that rape is not a serious crime, only that the numbers posted by others seemed way out of whack. I ran a quick comparison of reported results versus prospective numbers and found an enormous discrepancy. Even the DOJ taking into case underrepresentation only estimated an increase to 300k victims. I cede to your expertise in the knowledge of the psychology of rape and its victims and know that you are more privy to the inside scoop. However, again, I have only shown the discrepancy found in the numbers other people have used on this thread.

Every crime statistic is under reported. How many men do you think have had their asses kicked and not reported it? I would dare say that number is equal to or higher than rape. How many burglaries or car break-ins occur are not reported to the police because the victim doesn't feel that the police can do anything about it? So every crime would have to have a variable coefficient reflecting underrepresentation.

By the by, this is not the first time I have researched rape and rape cultures.

 

I do not believe that woman can completely prevent the possibility of being raped, any more than you or I can completely prevent being murdered or struck by lightning.

But saying 'we can't ever be safe so let's not do what we can to prevent it.' Is not the best mantra either. It's just that some people reject any type of morality that they would actually argue that being exposed to rampant sexuality doesn't cause negative effects.

 

Also, another important figure to include in the argument about rape is the number of males being raped. The FBI UCR definition of rape only takes into account vaginal penetration, so the numbers cannot be compared fairly, but it is estimated by the DOJ that 93,000 males are raped per year. This number is included in the NCVS and accounts for over 1/3 of the reported incidents. While there is a fair percentage of rape that is sexually motivated, there is also a strong contingency that rape as a whole is more about power than sex.