How Many?...How Many?
Like the ridiculous (and untrue) one in four number, which is widely quoted as the number of girls that are sexually assaulted before the age of 18, there's another ridiculous number being floated right now about molested children.
About the alleged rape number above, Kate Roiphe asked "If I was really standing in the middle of an 'epidemic'...if 25 percent of my female friends were really being raped, wouldn't I know it?"
I wrote about this here:
Researchers who used sound scientific methods came up with much lower figures than Koss; for example, the finding by the University of Washington's Margaret Gordon showing 1 in 50 women is a rape victim. Truth-in-feminism advocate Hoff Sommers notes the paucity of headlines generated by researchers like Gordon, who based their statistics on solid data. Gordon described pressure from "really avid feminists...trying to get me to say that things were worse than they really are," but refused to budge from what good data told her was the truth.Hoff Sommers also references New York magazine reporter Peter Hellman's 1990 investigation into rumors of a rape outbreak at Columbia University. Upon investigation, he found only two rapes were reported to the Columbia campus police that year, and fewer than one thousand on college campuses across the entire country -- which works out to fewer than one-half of one rape per campus. Nevertheless, Columbia was pressured by feminists to install an expensive rape crisis center at the university. Hoff Sommers quotes Hellman describing a typical Saturday night for the three peer counselors sitting around at the center: "Nobody called; nobody came."
So, while Dines professes to be acting in women's best interest, Katie Roiphe, in doubting the "one in four" statistic, was actually the one best serving women -- calling into question the pervasive campus rape hysteria. Sounding the alarm when there's little need for an alarm, or such a loud and persistent alarm, comes with a price. It means deflecting attention and funding from where it's really needed; for example, in preventing the very real risk that homeless inner-city women will be victims of violent sexual assault -- a topic which doesn't gather quite the crowd as does fomenting unnecessary fear of men on a campus of coddled women. As for the real issue in pornography -- women and children in the developing world being sold into sex slavery -- the victim feminists can't worry so much about that; they've got a "Take Back The Night" march across campus.
Who do we really have to fear? Legal scholar and ACLU president Nadine Strossen points to "the feminist procensorship movement." In her book, Defending Pornography - Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights, Strossen explains, "Women's rights are far more endangered by censoring sexual images than they are by the sexual images themselves. Women do not need the government's protection from words and pictures. We do need, rather, to protect ourselves from any government infringement upon our freedom and autonomy, even - indeed, especially - when it is allegedly 'for our own good.'"
In other words, Dines, Jensen, and the "Big Sister"-hood are the real victimizers here: pseudo-intellectual thugs who demonize men, infantilize women, and use the media to beat up anyone who dares question the unsupported contentions they pass off as truth. In reality, you don't protect women by convincing them they're victims, but by telling them they're powerful enough to protect themselves, teaching them how, and insisting they do it. You teach women they have choices, and must be personally responsible for those they make. And, you celebrate critical thinking and truth-seeking over blind acceptance of "the facts." Only by throwing off the yoke of victimhood can women alert themselves to real dangers instead of busying themselves with phony ones -- those that pay the salaries of Dines and Jensen, and give them a level of status they probably couldn't attain any other way.
The latest wild stat comes out of an organization called "Shared Hope International." Here's an MSNBC quote from their total unsensationally headlined story, "Super Bowl a magnet for under-age sex trade":
Up to 300,000 girls between 11 and 17 are lured into the U.S. sex industry annually, according to a 2007 report sponsored by the Department of Justice and written by the nonprofit group Shared Hope International.
Really? Really? "Up to 300,000" young girls? To borrow from Roiphe, if there was this vast number of underage exploited children...wouldn't we know? Where do they all come from?
And then there's this, the opener to the story:
ATLANTA -- Pimps will traffic thousands of under-age prostitutes to Texas for Sunday's Super Bowl, hoping to do business with men arriving for the big game with money to burn, child rights advocates said...."The Super Bowl is one of the biggest human trafficking events in the United States," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott told a trafficking prevention meeting in January.
I have no proof that it isn't. But, first of all, are there really that many kiddie diddlers out there? Seems implausible. And trafficking THOUSANDS of under-age prostitutes in? How? Where will they keep them? How will they hide them?
I'm very much behind preventing abuse, especially sexual abuse of children, but doesn't this number...hundreds and hundreds of thousands, sound fishy? Here's a link. An excerpt:
Experts estimate at least 100,000 American juveniles are victimized through prostitution in America each year. Domestic minor sex trafficking is child sex slavery, child sex trafficking, prostitution of children, commercial sexual exploitation of children (CSEC), and rape of a child.
Here's another excerpt:
In the Midwest, a child protection services officer in Kansas City related that approximately 84 child victims of prostitution had been identified since 2000 in Jackson County, Missouri. Of those 84 victims, 10 were local to Jackson County. Ages ranged from 12 to 16 years old.
Yes, 84, since 2000. Awful, horrible, and tragic for those victims, but the number sure doesn't point to the scare number they give out in the media and on their site. I looked up the study on Google Scholar, with the reference they gave (Wade, Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking Assessment Report -- Independence, Missouri, pg. 37.) and wasn't finding it.
The rest of the numbers in the report just don't bear out the number in the MSNBC report.
Here it is again from their paper:
There is no national reporting measure currently in place to provide accurate reporting of the numbers of commercially sexually exploited youth in America. The proliferation of labels and variations in data reporting in each state creates an inability to assess the true scope of domestic minor sex trafficking. Nonetheless, experts have estimated numbers from 100,000 to 300,000 children each year are victimized in prostitution in America.
"Experts"? Such as? And they got their data from?
Crying wolf and overestimating harm means money goes to "preventing" harm that might be better spent preventing real harm elsewhere. In this case, it also means, once again, demonizing men in general as the exploiters of children. Sure, some are. A very, very, very small number.
UPDATE: I found this at the DOJ:
Although comprehensive research to document the number of children engaged in prostitution in the United States is lacking, it is estimated that about 293,000 American youth are currently at risk of becoming victims of commercial sexual exploitation. Richard J. Estes and Neil Alan Weiner, Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the U.S, Canada and Mexico, University of Pennsylvania, Executive Summary at 11-12 (2001).
"At risk"? Not quite the same as it actually happening.
And then there's this at the DOJ, which sounds like another exaggeration to me.
Q. I recently read a Newsweek article that said that middle class children are becoming involved in prostitution for pure financial gain. Is that true?A.A recent study by Richard Estes of the University of Pennsylvania indicated a trend that children from stable middle class homes are becoming involved in prostitution to earn money for luxury goods. The Newsweek article profiled a 17 year-old girl from Minnesota who was from a typical middle class home and had engaged in prostitution. At this time we cannot judge whether this behavior is a trend, but we can state that the majority of children who are victims of prostitution are not from stable homes.
And then, there's this on Estes (whose studies I have not read and unfortunately don't have time to read today). It's from Research on Human Trafficking in North America: A Review of Literature, by Elzbieta M. Gozdziak and Elizabeth A. Collett, and was published in the journal "International Migration":
Richard Estes, for example, estimates that as many as 17,000 children are traf- ficked into the United States every year (Estes and Weiner, 2001), which does not correspond with the most recent numbers provided by the CIA. As indicated above, the CIA's current estimates put the number of trafficking victims (adults and children combined) at 14,500 to 17,500 per annum. Estes' data, however, is problematic in many other ways. When presenting his research at a conference on identifying and serving child victims of trafficking in Houston, Texas, Estes was not able to differentiate between children who have crossed international borders and those who were trafficked within a particular North American country. He also did not collect data on nativity, and therefore was not able to provide information whether the children he studied were foreign-born or native-born. Data on nativity is important for many reasons, including referral and determination of eligibility for particular services. In the United States, foreign-born child victims of trafficking are eligible for a full complement of assistance, including immigration relief, under the provisions of TVPA, while US-born child victims obviously do not need immigration assistance and would be referred to child protective services for appropriate protection and services.At the moment the only reliable US data relate to the number of trafficking victims officially certified by ORR. As of 18 March 2005, ORR certified 717 survivors of trafficking, including 651 adults and 66 children. The group included 213 males and 504 females.
Wait, here's the 300,000 number (again and again) in a report by Estes and Weiner:
Indeed, the first World Congress Against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (Muntarbhorn, 1996) confirmed that large numbers of prostituted children are to be found in rich countries, including in the U.S. for which the "End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography, and the Trafficking of Children for Sexual Exploitation" (ECPAT) estimated their numbers to be between 100,000 and 300,000 (ECPAT, 1996b:70). Other estimates suggest the numbers of sexually exploited children to be even higher (Goldman & Wheeler, 1986; Greenfeld, 1997; Spangenberg, 2001)....As reported in Exhibit 3.2 below, the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) receives more than 300,000 reports of child sexual abuse each year (NCCAN, 1996).
...The persons identified in these 17 categories, however, do not include the more than 300,000 American children and youth who annually become victims of child sexual assaults in their own homes (National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect, 1996; OJJDP, 2000),
...Previous estimates of the number of such cases ranged from a low of 300,000 (ECPAT, 1996b) to a high of as many as 1,000,000 cases (Goldman & Wheeler, 1986). Neither estimate, though, was based on empirically-derived evidence, and both asser- tions have been widely criticized as lacking scientific merit.
Check out the chart in their shorter "executive summary."
Bless you. I *love* a sensible look at statistics. The '1 in 4' has been aggravating me since I saw it. Don't people think??
crella at February 2, 2011 1:51 AM
If I remember correctly, the 1 in 4 number was accurate, but only because it defined sexual assault very broadly, ie, getting your ass grabbed on the subway counted, things like that.
You don't have to be a pedophile to be molesting a minor, there are lots of 15-year-olds who look like women.
But I've no idea where they get the numbers. I also wonder about the 85% of people with disease X don't know they have it stat. If they don't know it, how the hell do you?
NicoleK at February 2, 2011 1:52 AM
Amy Alkon doesn't care about the children! Think of the children!
/sarcasm
As for where they hide all the kids for the superbowl pervert parties, that would be in imagination land.
Sio at February 2, 2011 3:42 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/02/02/how_many.html#comment-1835496">comment from NicoleKRegarding the one in four number, the methodology was shoddy, and I think you might be remembering what I wrote about it in 2007, which I've posted a number of times, including recently (and which I got fired from the C-Ville paper for writing after feminists complained [how DARE I write such a thing]):
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/05/10/diddle_he_or_di_1.html
Amy Alkon
at February 2, 2011 4:15 AM
Very similar to the dodgy stat that 1 in 10 men are homosexual. As I recall they counted anyone who had ever had a homoerotic thought, any sort of contact with a bloke, etc, reasoning that they needed to include closet gays. They were out by an order of magnitude - it's more like 1-3% - but it still gets quoted a lot.
Ltw at February 2, 2011 4:57 AM
Without regard for whether 1 in 4 or 1 in 50 (or 1 in something else) is correct, what is patently incorrect is using the number of sexual assaults reported to campus police as a proxy for the actual number of women sexually assaulted. Unless you are adhering to the maxim that no woman (or child) is REALLY assaulted unless she reports it to the police (and probably right away, too!!). If your point is that statistics aren't perfect, fine. If your point is that you believe there was only a single sexual assault on every second college campus in a particular year, then it's kind of hard to take whatever else you say seriously.
mk at February 2, 2011 6:16 AM
Unless you are adhering to the maxim that no woman (or child) is REALLY assaulted unless she reports it to the police (and probably right away, too!!).
There is no such maxim. WTF are you talking about?!?
1 in 50, or one in 1000, or 10,000 is too many. But that doesn't justify revising the definition of rape to indict all heterosexual men everywhere. That's was the true motivation for the rape crisis hysteria of the 90's. It was a mass vendetta.
Jj at February 2, 2011 6:45 AM
I saw a story where a feminist said 1 out of 4 women at colleges are sexually assaulted. Implied to mean raped. Really??? So that is how stupid our female population is? that they would go to a college with males and subject themselves to that. Please- Women would not subject themselves to that and these statistics are horseshit!
David M. at February 2, 2011 7:04 AM
I wonder if these experts (in estimating percentages) walk funny. Pulling all those statistics directly out of your ass has to be uncomfortable after a while.
Pricklypear at February 2, 2011 8:06 AM
"'Did anyone ever try or succeed in touching your breasts or genitals against your wishes before you turned 14?' Well, if you put it that way, even I was a victim of child sexual abuse: It was sixth grade, we were playing spin the bottle in somebody’s basement, and the boy who kissed me tried to feel me up."
/huge dollop of sarcasm
Good lord, Ms. Alkon, like you, I am a sexual assault survivor, and I never knew it! When I was in 7th grade and therafter, more than one gal I was not attracted to put hands on me in places they aren't supposed to without permission and without any prior discussion. I thought they were simply awkward young teens. But in fact, they were slavering sex predators, scarring me for life. When I see them someday, white-haired and bearing pictures of grandchildren, at some future class reunion, I will be sure to loudly, pubicly scream my righteous indignation at their decades-old sexual crimes. Take back the night! /fist raised
Sarcasm aside, I remembering seeing the "underage sex workers at the superbowl" headline the other day and thinking immediately, "Oh look, a shameless lie told by some granite-faced, tenured man-hater." It is like that lie told a decade ago about how domestic violence peaks during the Superbowl, as all those stupid, violent men beat on their wives after, presumably, getting drunk and losing all the mortgage money on betting.
Spartee at February 2, 2011 8:45 AM
mk: "...Unless you are adhering to the maxim that no woman (or child) is REALLY assaulted unless she reports it to the police (and probably right away, too!!."
Jj: "There is no such maxim. WTF are you talking about?!?"
Jj,
I expect mk might have been referring to this
(from the 4th par of Amy's post)?
"Upon investigation, he found only two rapes were reported to the Columbia campus police that year, and fewer than one thousand on college campuses across the entire country -- which works out to fewer than one-half of one rape per campus."
Jody Tresidder at February 2, 2011 8:49 AM
"Without regard for whether 1 in 4 or 1 in 50 (or 1 in something else) is correct, what is patently incorrect is using the number of sexual assaults reported to campus police as a proxy for the actual number of women sexually assaulted. Unless you are adhering to the maxim that no woman (or child) is REALLY assaulted unless she reports it to the police (and probably right away, too!!). If your point is that statistics aren't perfect, fine. If your point is that you believe there was only a single sexual assault on every second college campus in a particular year, then it's kind of hard to take whatever else you say seriously."
mk, you can probably demonstrate this for yourself, if not prove it.
Take the nearest large university near you. Apply whatever percentage you want for the number of women raped each year. Multiply it by the population of women at the university. Correct by any factor you wish to correct it by.
The FBI says 37% of rapes are reported. Let's agree it's only 1%.
Now search the university paper, search your local papers, search search search.
I live nearish to ASU with a total student population of about 70,000 IIRC, 1/2 on campus, 1/2 women, 16,000 women, over 4 years 25% of the women are raped or about 1000 women a year getting raped, 1 in 100 reporting to the police so 10 women raped or about 1 per month and .... there is usually about 1 - 2 rapes reported a year in the papers attributed to the campus. And that's out of 1000 women getting raped every year!
When I do a google news search for either ASU rape or Arizona State University rape and do that for the period from 1/1/2010 to 1/1/2011, guess how many rapes show up? Much much much much closer to 1 rape, or closer to 10 rapes?
So here we have 1000 rapes a year going on at ASU, that's 20 rapes every week, or 3 rapes every day, and the ASU paper isn't reporting it, and the AZ Republic isn't reporting it and the East Valley Tribune isn't reporting it, and not a single reporter or editor thinks this actual rape holocaust is worth reporting.
So prove it to yourself.
Jesus, I hate ASU, all those rapes, no wonder none of their coeds come up to my van.
jerry at February 2, 2011 8:50 AM
Wow, Jerry, thanks for pointing that out. Disgusting how this happens again and again.
What do you all think is behind this? Feminist agenda/hatred of men? Getting funding for projects and centers to combat this supposed epidemic?
Amy Alkon at February 2, 2011 9:22 AM
I'm not sure that there will ever be accurate statistics. My brother was molested as a child but it was never reported. I was raped when I was younger and not only never reported it but never told a soul until a few years ago. It actually took reading a magazine article about rape that discussed a situation nearly identical to mine that made me finally talk about it. Of course not only were the statue of limitations up but what chance did I really have to bring the rapist to justice. So I don't know what column you want to put an unreported rape and an unreported molestation in, but I'd rather not be a statistic anyway.
Kristen at February 2, 2011 9:26 AM
Why is it that women always want to think the worst about men, they want to so badly that they create these lies to justify themselves. The rape numbers are a good example of this. The only real evidence that they provide is evidence that the person whobelieves them must hate men.
Rhona at February 2, 2011 9:28 AM
hmmm, very sneaky MK how we move from 1:4 or 1:50 rapes to sexual ASSULTS.
and are these things the SAME? Does conflating them, help prevent them?
when I was on the big bad campuses in college in the 80's I walked women around campus from our dorms to various buildings. As it worked out, it was a great way to prove to women that you weren't the big bad wolf, and instead were the huntsman protecting them. Dunno if it was needed... what IS needed is for women to be careful, MINDFUL of their surroundings. Got an iPod blasting in your ears while walking or running? We used to call them walkmen, and they very much take away your situational awareness, and make you a target. Get slammed at a different party every night, and wake up not sure where you are? WHO CAN PROTECT YOU FROM BEING STUPID?
Just like ANYTHING ELSE, the only person you control in this life is YOU. This doesn't excuse anyone who attacks, but you are the one who must protect yourself. Trafficking is a whole other matter, and it shouldn't be thrown in with the same subject, lest it be diluted. Trying to make the response to what happens to a girl on campus waking up in an unfamiliar bed the same as the response that happens to a teenage runaway from Iowa who ends up on the street in NYC ignores the FACT that the situations are quite different. They need to be treated differently by the police, and by the victims, and by people who try to avoid the women ever being victims.
One size DOESN'T fit all, and trying to make it do so is what makes a guy think twice about helping a lost toddler, who then drowns. What allows a girl to decides a couple of days later that she shouldn'a said yes and get her partner thrown in jail... and what allows some people to ignore the plight of a slave, because she is a runaway and must be a 'bad' girl anyway.
Those who can protect themselves must do so, and those who cannot, need protection, and they aren't all the same. Or would that bee too much common sense.
SwissArmyD at February 2, 2011 9:33 AM
"Why is it that women always want to think the worst about men, they want to so badly that they create these lies to justify themselves. The rape numbers are a good example of this. The only real evidence that they provide is evidence that the person whobelieves them must hate men."
I certainly do not hate men. I don't even hate the man that raped me. I hate what he did and that he got away with it but I will not give him any more control over my life by hating all men because of his act. Rhona, you are using very broad generalizations and that is unfair. No feminist told me to cry rape. It happened before I even knew what a feminist was. The fact that I didn't report it had more to do with the shame I felt at the time for "allowing" it to happen or somehow feeling responsible for an act that was forced on me. Its a very typical reaction for victims of rape and it really is upsetting when someone cries rape falsely or when the fight between feminists and whoever actually takes away from the fact that rape is a very realy thing that occurs every day.
Kristen at February 2, 2011 9:40 AM
I'm not sure that there will ever be accurate statistics.
I agree. As with a lot of sexually self-reported data (or unreported) I think it's best to say that these crimes happen, and talk about ways to prevent them.
By the way, children of divorce living with stepparents are the most likely to be abused by another person in their home (the non-genetically related parent). The late Margo Wilson, with her husband Martin Daly, did research on this.
Amy Alkon at February 2, 2011 9:42 AM
"What do you all think is behind this? Feminist agenda/hatred of men? Getting funding for projects and centers to combat this supposed epidemic?"
Beats me, but all of this sounds quite likely.
Part of why we should never expect a bureaucracy or movement or any organization to dismantle itself, or another reason to put sunsetting clauses into everything.
jerry at February 2, 2011 9:42 AM
Kristen your post came in while I was typing mine. I wasn't commenting on you, you're not doing what I am referring to.
Rhona at February 2, 2011 9:46 AM
The irony here is that women outnumber men on campus by a wide & growing margin - 57 to 43 % nationwide in the US:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html?pagewanted=all
The likes of Dines & Jensen can't seem to explain why millions of smart, ambitious women are so eager to go someplace where they are so likely to be raped at least once while getting a 4 year Bachelors degree. The man-hating hysteria they're peddling may have something to do with the fact that more & more men are deciding that the campus is no place for them.
Martin at February 2, 2011 9:54 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/02/02/how_many.html#comment-1835647">comment from MartinMartin, I sure wouldn't go to a school where 25 percent of the women were raped. Who would?
And if you were raped, I hope you will report it. It's a horrible crime and the perpetrator shouldn't be allowed to walk free.
Make no mistake, I strongly encourage rape victims to report the crimes against them and to not feel shame that this has happened to them -- any more than they would if they had their car stolen.
Amy Alkon
at February 2, 2011 9:59 AM
Well, I for one made sure that my daughters knew that all men are indeed pigs and have an internal drive to have sex with you. More from a general "keep your guard up" then from "men will rape you".
ronc at February 2, 2011 10:09 AM
Under the feminist logic that ex-post facto regrets turn consensual sex into rape days or weeks after the fact when the desired returns aren't realized, then would it not also follow that ex-post facto regrets of consensual spending on women would turn into theft when the expected return of an eventual sexual encounter are not attained?
A mature society would not normalize such nonsense, but I no longer think we live in a mature society.
Trust at February 2, 2011 10:15 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/02/02/how_many.html#comment-1835669">comment from roncWell, I for one made sure that my daughters knew that all men are indeed pigs and have an internal drive to have sex with you.
The fact that men want to have sex with you doesn't make them pigs; it makes them men. "You shouldn't confuse sexual desire with a desire for commitment" is a wiser thing to teach. Demonizing men is not useful.
Amy Alkon
at February 2, 2011 10:22 AM
@ronc: "Well, I for one made sure that my daughters knew that all men are indeed pigs and have an internal drive to have sex with you. More from a general "keep your guard up" then from "men will rape you"."
_____________
I would imagine that some day, thanks in large part to your sexist (albeit well-intentioned) instruction, that if your daughters were to marry, they would treat what may very well be good husbands with almost unconscious disdain and place their intent under a cloud of suspicious... after all, they were taught that "all" men are pigs.
I have two daughters, so they will indeed be taught that men want to have sex and that is not the same as them wanting commitment. But they certainly won't be taught that "all" men are pigs. If they have disdain for "all" men, they have no hope for a good marriage.
Trust at February 2, 2011 11:17 AM
BTW, I believe it is still accurate that every day in the USA, more men are raped then women.
The men are prisoners, raped by other prisoners.
Yes, it's ugly, everyone detests criminals, but still doesn't the Con. prohibit "cruel and unusal" punishment?
Yet all we hear about are women getting groped on trains etc.
BOTU at February 2, 2011 11:24 AM
just so you understand the relationship I had with my daughters, I would also embarrass them in restaurants by asking them why they did not want to join the army, fly helicopters, and kill muslims. They took everything I said with the proper grain of salt, and they are all exceptional women now. But, deep down, all men willtake as much as you are willing to give, it is in the ol' DNA. And that butthead idiot will be ignored
ronc at February 2, 2011 12:49 PM
Ronc, rape is not men taking as much as you're willing to give. Rape is a man taking what you refuse to give. There is a very big difference and its not a joking matter. A man having the desire to screw someone and trying everything to get it is completely different from a man who decides he's going to take it regardless. I have made sure my daughter has good men around her while she grew up, not boyfriends, and she knows the difference between a man who will respect her and a man who won't. That is a different lesson than teaching about rape.
Kristen at February 2, 2011 2:35 PM
I think that you can be vehemently against rape, and still critical of rape propaganda. Rape is an issue that has been co-opted by Feminists to further their political agenda. Their approach doesn't make sense as a remediation tactic. You aren't going to protect women from rape by diluting the definition to meaninglessness and absurdly exaggerating the frequency of these incidents. This has the perverse effect of discrediting rape victims and making rape seem less heinous than it actually is. If rape is simply sex that a woman later regrets, then how legitimate are any rape claims? Is forcible rape really just the result of different ways of perceiving a sexual encounter? I don't think so, but that's a logical inference based on the model of rape that Feminists promote.
seymore at February 2, 2011 6:31 PM
@seymore: "I think that you can be vehemently against rape, and still critical of rape propaganda. Rape is an issue that has been co-opted by Feminists to further their political agenda. Their approach doesn't make sense as a remediation tactic. You aren't going to protect women from rape by diluting the definition to meaninglessness and absurdly exaggerating the frequency of these incidents"
_________
Good post.
When I would hear a woman was raped, I used to recoil in horror at the thought of someone violently forced to have intercourse. Not anymore. Now, I have to ask "what happened?" This is an injustice to real victims.
Trust at February 2, 2011 7:11 PM
"What do you all think is behind this? "
It's really just an artifact of the all-consuming campus leftism, busy cutting the campus off from any contact whatsoever with reality. It stems from the fact that post-modern feminism is really just leftism with a particular spin, to appeal to a particular audience.
Cousin Dave at February 2, 2011 10:28 PM
Hysteria. If you can only get hysteria going, then you can get people to give your cause money.
Sadly, too many people fall for it. I read an advice column in the local paper this morning, where a father is horrible worried that his son is a pedophile. Why? Because his son likes looking at pics of young teen girls. Of course, his son is - you guessed it - a young teen.
a_random_guy at February 2, 2011 11:01 PM
How's this for a proposed definition of rape.
The following scenarios would count as rape:
1) The perp forcibly holds the victim down and forces themself inside
2) The perp uses the threat of violence to make the victim submit, for example holding a gun to the victim's head, or threatening to kill the victim's baby, or something like that
3) The victim is passed out or in a coma
4) The perp slips drugs into the victim without victim's knowledge
5) The perp tricks the victim into thinking they are someone else, ie, if the victim is married to the perp's identical twin or something (not a very likely scenerio, but if it happened I think it should count)
Make sense?
NicoleK at February 3, 2011 4:44 AM
5) The perp tricks the victim into thinking they are someone else, ie, if the victim is married to the perp's identical twin or something (not a very likely scenerio, but if it happened I think it should count)
Heh. This very thing happened in my hometown last summer. The people involved were all in their 20s, the girl drunk-dialed the one twin, who told his brother she was coming over, but he was going to be bed, so he (the other twin) should go ahead and do what he wanted. Twin #2 and their sister were in the hottub when the drunk girl got there, the sister went to bed, and then drunk girl and twin #2 started to get it on. She realized it wasn't twin #1 when she saw #2's arse and the tattoo that #1 has wasn't there. She told him to stop but apparently he put a pillow over her head and finished anyway. The case is still on the court docket, but I hear it's close to being resolved. Of course, twin #1 is staying FAR away from this whole thing, and #2 lost his job over it. There are extenuating circumstances (i.e. the girl was drunk, twin #2 is an ass), but it seems to me they've both suffered as a result of their combined stupidity. He should be punished, but I think he'll probably get a slap on the wrist and maybe probation. Hopefully, she learned not to drunk dial people for a casual screw when she doesn't know the other person very well. Also, twin #1 has (or had, at that point) a girlfriend, so he was wrong to tell her to come over to begin with.
Ah well. Sometimes you get what you pay for.
Flynne at February 3, 2011 5:37 AM
Check out this story from the UK
The price of undercover sex in the police
A strong thread in the comments is that this should be considered rape. Which is of course garbage. Betrayal, yes, but not rape.
Ltw at February 3, 2011 9:31 PM
Well, Ltw, lying to get a one night stand is one thing. Carrying on that lie long enough to have a woman birth two of your kids is something else entirely.
lujlp at February 4, 2011 5:48 PM
Leave a comment