Stop Quoting Bullshit Rape Stats Meant To Demonize Men
On the Match.com entry, where I said that a woman's contention that checking members' names against a sex offender registry will protect women will actually not and will give them a false sense of security, a woman I know through a friend came on and said I knew she'd been raped by a man she met on Match.com.
I didn't know that -- she merely wrote me a vague message on Facebook (the worst way and laziest way to reach me) and when, to be kind, I wrote back to tell her to email me at my personal email address and I'd make some time on the evening of my deadline night to speak to her, I never heard from her -- until two days ago, when I posted the Match.com entry. But, I don't formulate my opinions based on emotion, but reason, and while I think it's horrible that she was raped, I'm not going to advocate for a Match.com to behave in a way that will only make it very expensive for people to join while giving women a false sense of security.
Moreover, both of these women knew that Match.com does exactly one check -- to make sure your credit card goes through -- and chose to date people from the service anyway.
As I wrote in the comments on the entry, I'm no less hard on myself in terms of the need to take personal responsibility and chiding myself for my failure to take it a few years back in New York:
I was attacked by a guy on the street in New York, and while you think my response above is "cold" per your particular situation, I approached what happened to me with a similar attitude.I was attacked walking in my old neighborhood after coming back from California. I used to only walk down Greenwich at night if the UPS loading docks were still open. They weren't but I broke my old rule. Should I have been attacked? No, nobody has a right to do that to you. But, I needed to be prudent, and I wasn't.
I continued:
As for background checks, I could establish a credible fake identity in probably an hour. It might cost me $150 at Macarthur Park for a new driver's license and maybe a few more bucks for the fake social security number. Anybody who thinks they are protected from a determined predator by this has another thing coming.
And I reiterated my thoughts:
I took a number of risks when I was still dating, like letting near strangers into my home, but I was well-aware that they were risks, and I had nobody to blame but myself if they didn't pan out well. I feel strongly that this personal responsibility approach, not the idea that somebody else will protect you with a background check on somebody (that somebody can easily get around by borrowing somebody else's ID or buying a stolen ID), is the way to be the safest...if that's what you desire. Some people find risk-taking exciting and knowingly choose to take risks. That's their prerogative. Those who are not willing to suffer the potential consequences should not date off the Internet, meet strangers in bars, or allow somebody into their home until they have had a great deal of experience with them in public, and otherwise take precautions.
But, the point of this blog item is my disgust at yet another person quoting the bullshit rape stats in the comments:
And remember, 1 in 3 women has been a victim of sexual assault.
My response:
Please, please, stop quoting bullshit rape stats that come from radical feminists and not unbiased researchers seeking the truth.This woman is arguing that I am terrible for telling the truth -- that background checks will protect you from rapists. I got fired from a paper for telling the truth in the past -- about these crap stats. The editor who fired me just left, so I'm hoping I can get back in. Here's an excerpt from the column I got fired for:
Here you are, parroting this outrageous man-bashing propaganda -- "one in four women reports having been raped or molested during childhood" -- maybe because you heard it repeated so often you assumed it was fact. This figure is a common misquote of a survey by radical feminist sociology professor Diana Russell. Although Russell presents herself as a truth-seeking social scientist, her work reflects a substantial bias against men, as evidenced by her claim, based on one of her studies, that "a considerable amount of marital sex is probably closer to the rape end of the continuum."The actual figure from Russell's survey was an unbelievable one in 2.6 women sexually abused before the age of 18 -- a figure she arrived at with substandard sampling techniques and what UC Berkeley professor Neil Gilbert, in his book Welfare Justice, calls "research that lumps together relatively harmless behavior such as attempted petting with the traumatic experience of child rape." For example, one of Russell's questions asked, "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.
Should we really count a quick boob grab I got from some sixth-grader the same as the experience of some other 12-year-old girl who was repeatedly forced to have sex with her uncle? We should if we're looking to criminalize being male -- and never mind if that poisons relations between women and men, dilutes funding and attention to real victims, and leads to prejudicial policies like British Airways' that no unaccompanied minor can sit next to a man. (Which -- horrors! -- means some unaccompanied brat is more likely to be seated next to me!)
Women best protect themselves by appraising men as individuals, based on evidence, not by leaping to the assumption that "stepdad" equals sex predator. In other words, my advice to "Uneasy" stands. My advice to you? Pick up Christina Hoff Sommers' Who Stole Feminism? to get a better idea of the damage done by radical feminist activism tarted up as serious science. Contrary to what the likes of Diana Russell would have you believe, you should come to the conclusion that the answer to "Hey, Dad, how'd you meet Mom?" probably isn't "While raping her at knifepoint."
I know we've had this argument here before. While the study that you blogged about may have been by a radical feminist with a bias against men, that doesn't take away from the fact that rape happens quite frequently. The actual statistics change depending on which agency is reporting the numbers and lets not forget the college campuses that avoid reporting because it would deter incoming students. Also, take into consideration that many rape victims as well as victims of sexual abuse as children never come forward and report which makes true statistics very difficult to ever know.
My point is that we know it happens. We know it happens more than it should. Just as there are good men who would never rape or take advantage of a woman, there are women who will falsely cry rape for vindictive reasons which leaves room for doubt when a woman or child truly is violated and traumatized by a sexual assualt. I've never been a man basher and it frustrates me when the focus is on which numbers are correct and where are they coming from as opposed to talking about preventative measures and laws to keep rapists off the streets. Even with the strongest laws though, people will get raped. That is where I agree with Amy. Things happen. Horrible things happen. Anytime you meet a new person there is a risk. He could have been a serial killer and not a sex offender. Last I checked there was no serial killer registry so how would she be protected?
I'm sorry for that woman who was raped and in no way feel that she asked for it or deserved it. But blaming Match.com is not going to solve any problems nor is it going to prevent anyone from getting raped in the future.
Kristen at April 17, 2011 9:08 AM
Amy, are you fixating on this? Somebody who blames you for being callous, for not whining in tune with them, has harsh lessons to learn, but they're not going to do so here.
How about addressing something I find strange - the idea that if you have had a sex act of any kind forced upon you, your life is over, and you must be a perpetual victim?
How much of that is societal training, how much of it is learned from family?
-----
So far as this: "...it frustrates me when the focus is on which numbers are correct and where are they coming from as opposed to talking about preventative measures and laws to keep rapists off the streets":
Oh, bullshit! Another "keep {blank} OFF THE STREETS"! Why the HELL is that even considered a useful phrase!?
You must get the numbers and sources correct FIRST. Otherwise, you just perpetuate bad law.
Look at the numbers you want to act on now. Solution? Kill all men, immediately. That's the only sure way! Those numbers are so high! ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS! That's the only way that number can be so high.
Seen any male elementary school teachers lately?
Why not?
Wrong ideas, bad assumptions and completely insane people clutching those ideas are killing society.
I suggest that you don't want to do that.
Radwaste at April 17, 2011 9:48 AM
Rad, the problem again with the numbers is that who's numbers are accurate? I've read many stories of victims who were raped at colleges and the college made it go away. I grew up across the street from a pedophile who molested 3 boys I know of but it wasn't reported because the parents felt ashamed. I know that for fact. So its not an easy answer as far as numbers.
My son and daughter had a male elementary school teacher and he is loved. He is actually one of the most requested teachers in the school and became a mentor to my older son who was not his student. There were other male teachers at that school who were also loved.
I don't see anything I wrote that can be considered male bashing or a kill all men statement. I take issue with a justice system that allows repeated sex offenders back on the streets. Does it mean nobody will ever be a victim of a sexual assault again? No. But why let out the ones that have not only raped, but raped repeatedly? The same goes for the pedophiles that prey on our children. For me, once is enough to lock them away for life. They should never have a second chance. And no, not all child molesters are men. There are many women who have molested a child as well and should also be locked up.
My suggestion has always been to take the anti-man or anti-woman out of the argument. I grew up with brothers and have many male friends who I trust to be left alone with my daughter for extended periods of time. I have never taught my kids that men are bad or preying on them. My children were always the first to say hello to a stranger in the store and yes, that includes men. So when I say work on the laws and preventative measures its because I know people who were molested as kids and never reported it. I know women who were raped and never reported it. So yes, get those that we catch off the streets. Teach people to use better judgment when inviting people into their homes and lives. Teach your daughter its not the best idea to get so shitfaced at a college party that she doesn't know where she is. Its not blaming them but letting them know they are putting themselves in a position to be abused in some way. A predator will always prey on the weaker person over the stronger more sure of themselves person. And then again, there will always just be a crime of opportunity. We can never completely remove that, but we can do our best to know a situation we shouldn't put ourselves in. And in the end, there are just some things that are going to happen and the only person to blame is the perpetrator, not some web site.
Kristen at April 17, 2011 10:12 AM
Hmmm, rape happens quite frequently?
I have to wonder how you come to that conclusion.
Lets look at a few scenarios:
1. Man meets woman at a bar, they're both drinking hard, and they stagger out into an ally and get it on. The next day, she files a rape complaint.
2. Man pulls woman into ally, cuts off her panties and puts the knife to her throat. The next day, she files a rape complaint.
3. Man meets woman at a bar, they're drinking, and the man puts GHB into her drink without her knowledge, shortly afterwards, they have sex. The next day, she files a rape complaint.
4. Man meets woman at a bar, she does some ecstacy with the man after going back to his place, they have drunken drugged out sex. The next day, she files a rape complaint.
5. A binge drinking woman goes back to her apartment with a sober man, they have sex, waking up with him the next day, she's horrified, and files a rape complaint.
NOW, which of these above scenarios can we count as legitimate complaints of rape? Activists would argue that all 5 of them are rape. At first glance the argument most commonly used, that she could not lawfully consent because her judgement was impaired, makes sense.
But what if it wasn't sex, say she was driving a car while drunk or high, would we hold her responsible? Absolutely. Especially if she got into an accident and cost someone their life.
I would argue that scenario 2 and 3 are the only legitimate complaints. This is because force and deception are the elements the hypothetical man used to get a woman to comply sexually. She didn't engage in drug use or seek sexual companionship of her own accord then.
However alcohol use does not grant immunity from responsibility for personal choices. If she cannot lawfully consent to sex while intoxicated or high, than neither can the male, and he should be equally justified in filing a complaint of rape against her.
Now my hard drinking days are largely behind me, but everyone who has ever been a regular visitor to bars knows damn good and well that there are some hideous bar skanks that go to those places and will wait until a man they're attracted to starts to get intoxicated, because at that point he'll be compliant when she comes onto him and have sex with her, something he'd never do while sober. Can we label such women as these sexual predators and lock them away?
The idea of doing so is probably laughable. Indeed the men who do succumb to such tactics will probably just laugh about it later with their friends, traumatized only in the sense of being mortified, not ruined.
If we are going to call women the equals of men under the law, then they too must be called equally responsible for their choices. Regret is not the same as rape.
So...I say that rape does not happen all that frequently. I'm sure its true that significant numbers of those who are so ill used do not come forward and report the incident. However I am equally sure that the numbers of actual victims are vastly inflated beyond their real scope by complaints that are outright false, or fall into the other 3 example circumstances above, wherein the complaintant is essentially abdicated her responsibility for her decisions, not having the decision taken away from her by force or deception.
Robert at April 17, 2011 10:14 AM
While the study that you blogged about may have been by a radical feminist with a bias against men,
Translation: Sure I could look it up abd be sure, but hy bother when I can discredit you argument with vauge distain and imply you at best you're only guessing
that doesn't take away from the fact that rape happens quite frequently.
Translation: Who cares about the lies, the ends justify the means(which is how a rapist justifies their actions FYI)
lets not forget the college campuses that avoid reporting because it would deter incoming students.
Yeah, cause the sudents are forbidden by law from talking to real law enforcemnt by agreeing to go to college
Also, take into consideration that many rape victims as well as victims of sexual abuse as children never come forward and report which makes true statistics very difficult to ever know.
True enough, but that also means men arent comming forward about their sexual victimization, so painting men as the creeps doesnt really help matters. Hell riht now both the wife and daughter of a local county offical are facing charges stemming from years of sexual abuse the two of them cooperitavle engaged in on an underage boy
I take issue with a justice system that allows repeated sex offenders back on the streets.
Welcome to the War on Drugs, gots to put those pot smokers somewhere, and we all know drug use leads to violence, so if we have to release violent offenders in order to prevent non violent offenders form the chance that their drug use will turn them violent, well thats a chance society has willingly signed up for. LEagalise pot, there will be more prison beds for rapists
I know women who were raped and never reported it.
I know men who were raped or assulted, and they did report it, and nobody cared, beacuse their abusers were women
lujlp at April 17, 2011 10:34 AM
Robert, I have taught my sons that they take a very big chance if they sleep with a woman they are not in a relationship with if she is shit-faced. We could go back and forth on the issue of whether or not that is rape but the bottom line is I do believe that is an issue where personal responsibility is important. I would hope my sons would feel that even Gisele is not worth screwing if she were that incapacitated. Its a great way of avoiding a rape charge whether you believe its rape or not.
We have a case in New York right now where a woman was sent home by friends because she was staggering drunk. Cops were called to help her out of the cab and into her apartment because she was so drunk she could not get out of the cab. The cop not only had sex with her but went back 3 more times that night. Do you consider that rape? Or do you feel that the poor officer misunderstood her signals as she puked all over herself?
I question any friends that put her in a cab alone to go from Brooklyn to Manhattan, but does that mean that cop had the right to just decide he wanted a piece of that? No.
Rape happens frequently whether you want to believe that or not. Read my earlier post again where I do state that we need to teach personal responsibility especially when it comes to our daughters and drinking. My daughter getting shitfaced at a frat party doesn't mean six frat brothers have the right to pass her around as she's passed out, but yes, it does blur the lines of consent which is why I will teach my daughter how dangerous it is to ever get that drunk at a party with strangers. I would like to believe again, that while my daughter will experiment with alcohol, she will do so responsibly. And if she has a night where she isn't as responsible as I would like, I hope that nobody feels rape is a justifiable consequence.
Kristen at April 17, 2011 10:35 AM
Why did it never occur to the woman to open her own date-site that does background checks? Heck, the woman should spend the $15 and do her OWN background check, especially since she is going to save at least that much when the guy pays for her night out.
Women decried the patriarchy, and then demand it!
anon15319 at April 17, 2011 10:35 AM
"Translation: Sure I could look it up abd be sure, but hy bother when I can discredit you argument with vauge distain and imply you at best you're only guessing"
I wasn't discrediting an argument or throwing a guess out there.
"Yeah, cause the sudents are forbidden by law from talking to real law enforcemnt by agreeing to go to college"
Its not that the victims are forbidden, but there is often a manipulation to keep it quiet and a victim who already feels dirty and ashamed may not push the issue. The last thing a victim wants is to be on trial for what was done to them which happens often.
"I know men who were raped or assulted, and they did report it, and nobody cared, beacuse their abusers were women"
I know three men who were molested as kids. Two were by men. One was by a woman. Its not a contest who molests more. Not one of those cases were reported because the parents felt ashamed coming forward which allowed the molesters to go out and molest more kids and also sent the message to the kids that somehow it wasn't a big deal. Again, its not an issue of the big bad men and the poor little women. Anyone who rapes or molests and gets caught should go to jail. Any victim, male or female, deserves justice.
Kristen at April 17, 2011 10:45 AM
So Kristen, you want to make sure rapists go to prison. What exactly do you think should be done? Do you support feminists' efforts to reverse the burden of proof for rape defendants? (i.e. make them prove their innocence once accused)
dee nile at April 17, 2011 11:00 AM
What drives me crazy is that many women know that these stats are bogus but will cite them anyway.
For certain women, rape seems to have taken on an abstract social significance that's divorced from the reality of sex crimes. They want 'rape' to be symbolic of something. So the actual numbers are less important than the narrative. Rape is like slavery or the holocaust. It's used to reinforce a social identity.
Also I think that some people like using really big numbers to deliberately obscure the nature of sex crimes. Because when you analyze the stats, it's apparent that factors like age, context, and behavior are significant. But it's not PC to acknowledge that, and undermines the symbolic value of 'rape'. So they throw around these exaggerate proportions to reinforce the idea that it's an endemic form of social oppression by men. That women are helpless against rape because it's a pervasive social force.
JJ at April 17, 2011 11:11 AM
I dunno, at Smith they would quote those stats and then go on to talk about lesbian on lesbian rape and domestic violence. So it wasn't always about demonizing males.
NicoleK at April 17, 2011 11:33 AM
Nicole I find it hard to believe that, though the animosity towards lesbians at Smith seems to be universal. I think that every woman I've ever known who's attended Smith has complained about the lesbians.
jim at April 17, 2011 12:14 PM
It wasn't animosity towards lesbians, it was the lesbians complaining people were being heterocentric by not bringing up lesbian on lesbian rape, because lesbians deserve to be protected from their aggressive partners too.
The lesbians were great. I'm not complaining about them. The chalking on Coming Out Day was something to behold.
NicoleK at April 17, 2011 12:55 PM
Dee nile, maybe you should read my comments again. Any movement to deny a man his constitutional rights are not what I'm suggesting at all and I'm confused as why you would think I'm suggesting that. Rape happens. I choose not to get into arguments over statistics and I choose not to man bash. I have 3 brothers and 2 sons. I am not a man hater nor am I a radical feminist. I believe I stated my opinion while sticking to the issue. Maybe you should try the same.
There will always be false rape accusations just as there will always be rapists who never get caught or even get acquitted. The justice system will always be flawed. But a person who sexually abuses a child or forces a person to submit to a sexual act against his or her will should not be getting a lenient sentence. While I believe personal responsibility is a factor, it will never rid society of rape which is why I said I feel laws should be changed. Its not to avoid any person's argument or support a radical feminist ideal. What is your answer? Should we really stick it to those radical feminists and abolish any rape laws because we cannot agree on who's statistics are correct?
Kristen at April 17, 2011 1:12 PM
I am reminded of an accusation against candidate Nathan Deal, when running for governor of Georgia. He insisted that the right to face your accuser in a court of law was not to be set aside in rape cases.
The accusation was that "he wants it to be harder for rape victims to make criminals pay for their crimes".
Is that your position, Kristen? Reduce the burden of proof, eliminate the Constitutional right because of the stigma being manufactured - and perpetuated by those who insist that women are totally helpless, they must have special assistance?
Radwaste at April 17, 2011 1:13 PM
Kirsten, maybe you should read my comment again.
I only asked a question about what you would support; I did not assume anything.
You've said again you believe laws should be changed. What changes do you think would help reduce rape?
dee nile at April 17, 2011 1:24 PM
Whether its rape or not is dependent upon the answer to another question.
Can an intoxicated person consent or not?
Well I hate to answer a question with another question but:
If an intoxicated person is not considered to be responsible for their decisions while in that intoxicated state...how can we criminalize drinking and driving?
Personal responsibility is important. On that we agree. And personal responsibility is not alleviated by voluntarily reducing our inhibitions with alcohol or drugs.
You can't have a society wherein a person is considered rational and responsible for their actions...until they decide they don't want to be for awhile.
And this extends into the realm of the sexual.
Lets take a look at the question of your New York case.
Was the woman of age to drink? Yes.
Was the woman mentally retarded? No.
Was alcohol forced down her throat? No.
Did this woman know that alcohol reduces inhibitions? Yes.
Did this woman then voluntarily impair her judgement from first drink to last? Again yes.
Every single step of the way here, we see a woman aware of her actions and capable of making her own decisions, however reckless we may consider them to be.
So, lets continue:
Is it concievable that a woman in an intoxicated state behaved in a way that she might not have when sober? Yes.
Is any stranger in any position responsible for watching over or protecting this woman from her own right to make decisions? No.
Is it the responsibility of men to make decisions for women? Used to be. Not anymore.
And now we come to the crux of the argument with that final question don't we?
Once upon a time, it was a very very rare thing for a woman to make choices as in the case you cite. But women are "liberated" now. And welcome to the world. If you want the right to make choices for yourself, then you are responsible for their outcome. If a woman offers a man sex, it is not his responsibility to administer a breathalyzer test first.
Your daughter getting shitfaced as a party most certainly does not mean that once she's passed out she can be used like a blowup doll. I agree with you there.
HOWEVER, if your daughter gets shitfaced at a party and decides to reenacted "Debbie Does Dallas", while still conscious, you can't charge the men present with a crime either. Remember, they're probably equally drunk. And if they can legally consent, so can she.
Now hopefully she has more sense. But since we're talking about the subject of intoxication and consent, well there you have it. A passed out woman can't consent, a conscious one, however intoxicated, is just as responsible for her choices as a drunk driver is.
The line of consent, to borrow your phrase, must be clear in the law. No can happen before, no can happen during, it cannot happen the morning after.
That blurring of the line exists for the sole purpose of criminalizing men and labeling women as victims.
---------------------
I believe Miss Alkon posted on this subject once, about a radio broadcast featuring Dr. Laura. A woman called in talking about having had drunken sex with a guy the previous weekend, and he never called her back, this upset her, since she had hoped for a relationship with him. Since he never called, she wondered openly on the air if she should charge him with rape. The host of the show asked her why, and she answered, "Well I was drunk, and he had sex with me." To which the host replied, "No, you were both drunk, and had sex with each other."
Now did she sound like a rape victim to you?
I've had my fill of "Oh the line of consent is blurry." The FUCK it is. If you are a grown adult, if you are not forced to consume substances that inhibit your judgement, then every step of the way you are absolutely responsible for the choice to drive a car, order a pizza, have drunk sloppy sex, or...to refuse to do any of that. It is not the responsibility of any other person to protect people from themselves.
Did the New York woman offer sex? I don't know. Neither do you. Should the cop have refused it? Seems to me he should have been working, not fucking. But the argument that a woman that is conscious is not responsible for her decisions because she doesn't want to be (and that is what you suggest by arguing that women that are drinking can't consent), is a recipe for injustice.
Now I don't think I'd particularly mind going back a few generations in terms of some social restrictions, but I suspect you might.
Well sadly Kristen, we can't have it both ways. If you are liberated, you are free to choose, but not free to be immune from the consequences of those choices.
I'm glad you have the good sense to teach your daughter to make good choices. A great many women do not, or even seem to know how.
Robert at April 17, 2011 2:32 PM
One thing that would help reduce rape is men who are convicted of it serving what they deserve to serve-which is life. There are a lot of gray areas as people have pointed out but we can all agree that 1) drugging someone is rape 2) physical force/weapons is rape. The men who do this, once convicted of a jury, should be out of society, permanently.
Smart people-men or women-know not to touch 1) the drunk person 2) the person on X or what have you. It's common courtesy not to take what someone isn't currently capable of offering. Whether it's rape or not if they ingested of their own volition and then had sex willingly, is open to lots of interpretation (I'd say no) but if you're sober enough that you can tell the other person isn't, walk away. You'll never hear better words of advice on this topic than that.
momof4 at April 17, 2011 2:32 PM
DeeNile, I'll give you an example of something here on Long Island. There is a motel a few towns away that the county houses pedophiles after they are released from prison. This motel happens to be about a mile from the elementary school my kids used to attend. The law regarding distance changed and they had to be moved. The controversy now is where to move them. They are free to roam the county so to me where they are is pointless as far as proximity to schools go. I don't think they should have been released. We're not talking about a 20 year old kid dating a 17 year old getting caught up in some new child porn law. We're talking about grown men and women who have repeatedly sexually abused minors. There are a few sex offenders in there who have committed other violent crimes against adults and again, my question is why were they released? Why is it necessary to house them anywhere but a prison? Does anyone really believe that a child molester will ever be reformed. So to answer your question, rapes will still be committed, but the molester behind bars is one less molester on the street and one less rape or molestation that is going to occur, or actually, since the recidivism rate is so high, that molester left behind bars will spare many more rapes or molestations. And again, let's be very clear. They are being housed to satisfy conditions of release. Many criminals get released with conditions on parole or probation, but the sex offender is a completely different animal. The county isn't housing all of the local bank robbers nor are they housing the recently released drunken drivers. They are housing pedophiles because they know they cannot be trusted to be in the general public.
This is an issue I take very seriously because I do know quite a few victims. Despite what an early poster stated, they do not make an identity out of being a victim and it certainly is not about showing a male dominated society or man suppressing women,especially considering I know men who were victims. I hate getting lost in statistics because it becomes a battle of who's are correct, is their a radical feminist bias, etc. We know rape and molestation happen. Instead of making it a gender war, let's make it a war against sex offenders. Sorry if people don't get what I'm trying to say when I say that. It seemed pretty simple.
Kristen at April 17, 2011 3:19 PM
I know a man who considers himself to be "lucky" that when he was 12 he was deflowered by his hot 20 year old babysitter. Does he consider that sexual molestation? Of course not, in our society men are supposed to want sex as soon as they can ejaculate. Does that mean he wasn't molested or that it didn't have a horrible effect on his life? Of course not! This is the same guy who has ended up marrying and divorcing 4 different strippers, all of them were emotionally abusive, all of them were cheaters and since he's never acknowledged that he was abused he continues living over the same cycle thinking he can just get things right this one next time(not much different from the woman who was molested as a girl who constantly finds herself in cyclical relationships with men who take advantage of her vulnerability) he never learned how to not look at himself as oversexed because when he should have been fantasizing about bare breasts he was sexually active and being taken advantage of by a domineering person. So using that argument that guys don't complain when they've been "molested" or "raped" therefore women "letting molestation or rape" over effect us is ridiculous. Woman have simply had the "luxury" of being able to acknowledge those things as being as bad as they are while men have been made to feel that having sex early makes them more manly. I'm a pretty damn strong woman, I don't take shit, I stand up for what I believe in, I'm completely capable of kicking ass if I need to. If I needed to choose between being raped or murdered I'm not fully sure which I would choose.
binewskio at April 17, 2011 4:29 PM
About 12 years ago, when I was about 25 and living in an apartment, my neighbors wife knocked on my door and asked if she could use my phone to call her husband because she locked herself out of her apartment. I let her in, got my phone and offered it to her... she grabbed my privates and said "i'd rather have this first."
Another (now former) friend of mine, who was engaged at the time, unexpectedly tried to undo my pants to initiate sex.
In both instances, I declined the offers due to the rings on the fingers.
I guess I'm the victim off sexual assault too.
Trust at April 17, 2011 6:37 PM
Despite what an early poster stated, they do not make an identity out of being a victim and it certainly is not about showing a male dominated society or man suppressing women,especially considering I know men who were victims.
I didn't state that rape victims were seeking to identify, rather women who tendentiously promote those statistics. If anything, women who've actually experienced a sexual assault are probably less enthusiastic about the idea of lumping it in with 'grey rape' and awkward teenage moments.
Some of the ladies here are doing just what I'd complained about. You recognize that the statistics that are promoted are false, but want to rationalize their use towards a higher purpose. We shouldn't focus on whether they're correct, we should END RAPE NOW!
OK. But that's going to require the involvement of men, and it's evident that men don't want to go along with the story that you're telling. If you want people to take sexual assault seriously, you can't promote the issue with such obvious lies.
Does anyone think that it would be a good idea to do the same with, let's say, child abuse? Would it help matters if I were to put together some advocacy 'research' that showed that 60% of children were abused by their mothers? That's not true, but surely many children are, and people need to be aware of that. Right?
JJ at April 17, 2011 7:08 PM
Rape happens frequently whether you want to believe that or not.
This is the attitude that clogs the system with bullshit.
This is the attitude that sends real victims into to the limbo of drugs, booze and sometimes suicide, and lets real perps walk free.
This is why people need to go back to basics, reading comprehension and trusting their own instincts among the highest priorities.
Kat at April 17, 2011 7:27 PM
"I've never been a man basher and it frustrates me when the focus is on which numbers are correct"
Yeah, why worry about little things like having your facts straight, and basing decisions on unimportant things like 'the truth'?
"and where are they coming from as opposed to talking about preventative measures and laws to keep rapists off the streets"
Lol .. wtf? What do you propose - ban all men from walking? Require a permit and background checks and psychological profiling before you may walk in public? I'm not quite sure whether to laugh or be scared.
Lobster at April 17, 2011 7:49 PM
but the molester behind bars is one less molester on the street and one less rape or molestation that is going to occur, or actually, since the recidivism rate is so high, that molester left behind bars will spare many more rapes or molestations.
Apparently the reviticm rate isnt all that high
http://www.livescience.com/776-predator-panic-reality-check-sex-offenders.html
And children are more likey to be abused by
1 the parents
2 familly members
3 familly freinds
4 last and least often strangers
And dont kids yourself, most child "molesters" are children themselves or 19-21 yrolds involved in a consentual relationship with someone under 18.
Start having sex with a 17yr old girl 30 seconds before midnight on her 18th birthday and you'll not only spend up to ten years in jail, youls spend the next 30 on an offerers list
lujlp at April 17, 2011 10:57 PM
Maybe I should put something else up on paper next to the front door:
"Never forget that someone out there is eager to presume your guilt."
Radwaste at April 18, 2011 2:43 AM
It is courtesy momof4, but that is all it is, a courtesy to refuse. The woman who offers while drunk and regrets it is no more a victim than the man whom is drunk and accepts.
But how highly are the statistics pumped up by bogus accusations of that very kind?
Frankly, if the statistics do not show high numbers without vastly expanding the definition and "blurring the line", then obviously it is not as much of a problem as its advocates want us to think.
We're talking about the law here. The line CANNOT be "blurry" the law must be clear and plain to all.
Nobody would argue that a man holding a knife to a woman's throat is getting consent. Obviously rape.
The man who slips drugs into beverages is again, deliberately removing the element of choice. Obviously rape.
Pretty much anything else wherein a person is in whatever state they are entirely by choice, anything they offer or do is of their own volition. And regretting it the next day when clearheaded does not a rapist make.
The only ones "blurring the line" are people who want more men in jail, and/or want to absolve women of the responsibility of their own choices.
I've known men who've gone to bed with someone thinking they were a hottie and woken up horrified that they slept with a chewbacca.
Were these men taken advantage of? Almost certainly.
Did they regret what they did? Again this is a given.
Would they have made the same choice while sober? Absolutely NOT.
But does that make them victims of rape? That would be stupid.
And that is what we have here. A deliberate attempt by women to blur the line for political and social engineering purposes.
Robert at April 18, 2011 2:53 AM
"Now I don't think I'd particularly mind going back a few generations in terms of some social restrictions, but I suspect you might."
In 1963 when my mother was 25 she traveled cross-country with my 2-year-old brother by train to join my father in Oregon. In the middle of the night somewhere in Wyoming she awoke to find a fellow passenger, an 18-year-old man, unbuttoning her blouse with one hand and holding a pocket knife open in the other hand. He whispered to her, "Now you just be still." Instead she balled up a fist and socked him in the jaw. In the ensuing brouhaha the train was stopped and the police summoned. None of the other passengers had seen anything because they were asleep. After taking statements, the police told my mother they would not be pressing charges against her assailant, and in fact informed her she would be "lucky" if he didn't press charges against her for assault.
If that's how sexual assaults were routinely handled in the good old days, then you're correct in that I wouldn't want to go back there. Much of what's happening now is unfair to men. That doesn't mean everything was fair and square a few generations ago.
Lizzie at April 18, 2011 7:03 AM
if you're sober enough that you can tell the other person isn't, walk away.
Yes! We keep talking about a victim's personal responsibility, and we should be. Getting someone convicted of a crime
People who are falsely accused of rape also need to take some personal responsibility in not getting themselves into that situation. If she's shitfaced and you're not, leave her alone. Find sober sex elsewhere. There's plenty of it out there.
Why put yourself in that situation? If she accuses you of rape later, she may not even be lying: She may not even remember what happened and think she really was raped. No one is hot enough to go to prison for.
It starts getting difficult when women are expected to hold two contradictory thoughts in their head at the same time. 1) Men are safe, and we shouldn't be looking at all men like rapists, because that's offensive. 2) Look at every situation like a potential rape scenario and act accordingly to protect yourself. The question is, what do men want? Do they want women to look at them like rapists all the time so people can't later say they were negligent? There's always SOMETHING a crime victim could have done differently to prevent the crime. Hindsight is like that.
And I see what Kristen is saying. Focusing so heavily on the numbers isn't helpful because we don't know what the real numbers are, so any way we look at it, we're looking at numbers someone pulled out of their ass. People lie about this stuff frequently, on both sides of the issue, and I'm not confident that any of the numbers are accurate.
My brother was arrested for molesting a 5-year-old girl and the charges were dropped, supposedly because her family did not want to subject her to a trial. Maybe he did it. Maybe he didn't. I don't even know for sure in the case of someone in my own family, let alone in a string of statistics.
MonicaP at April 18, 2011 7:28 AM
Apparently, using greater than/less than symbols makes things break. That should have said:
Getting someone convicted of a crime is not as good as not being a victim of a crime in the first place, whether the victim has the moral high ground or not.
MonicaP at April 18, 2011 7:32 AM
"Lol .. wtf? What do you propose - ban all men from walking? Require a permit and background checks and psychological profiling before you may walk in public? I'm not quite sure whether to laugh or be scared."
Yes, Lobster, keeping all men off the streets would solve the rape problem. Great to see you are such a solution based thinker.
Kristen at April 18, 2011 8:50 AM
MonicaP Says:
"Focusing so heavily on the numbers isn't helpful because we don't know what the real numbers are, so any way we look at it, we're looking at numbers someone pulled out of their ass. People lie about this stuff frequently, on both sides of the issue, and I'm not confident that any of the numbers are accurate."
The issue here is that the numbers actually do matter.
The reason the numbers matter is that the proper legal response is determined by the true extent of the problem.
If in reality 1 in 4 college women are sexually assaulted, that would require absolutely draconian measures to resolve.
If in reality the numbers are more like 1 in 100 or 1 in 1000, the proper response is proportionately different.
To draw a good analogy, should the engineers in Japan really focus on the extent of the radiation that is present in the nuclear facility? Do the numbers really matter? Why don’t they just assume it is “bad” and not worry about the actual extent of the radiation leakage and the degree to which the radioactive material has spread?
The reason the numbers actually matter is they guide us in formulating an appropriate response.
Just assuming that the radiation leak was absolutely catastrophic and all of Japan needs to be evacuated isn’t the best way of handling a problem that is actually localized to a 100 mile region.
Our society has a finite set of resources that need to be properly allocated to handle a multitude of social problems. For every situation where we miscalculate the magnitude of the problem there is an associated opportunity cost for addressing a problem that gets pushed to the back burner in deference to the overestimated issue.
There are really social costs associated with screwing up the magnitude of the rape problem, it isn’t just a matter of tossing untold amounts of funding at the issue no matter how large or small it happens to be. The numbers are actually important.
Reality at April 18, 2011 10:12 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/17/stop_quoting_bu.html#comment-2054287">comment from RealityGreat point, Reality, on why numbers actually do matter. You've advanced my thinking on this.
Amy Alkon at April 18, 2011 10:30 AM
"If that's how sexual assaults were routinely handled in the good old days, then you're correct in that I wouldn't want to go back there. "
So, Lizzie, according to you, the police were suppsoed to arrest this guy on no evidence othe than your mother's accusation? Why? Because she was a mother and therefore holy and incapable of Lying? Because she was the Sacred Feminine who must be protected at all costs to anyone else? because after all, no one but a man was contradicting that story.
That is exactly the unconstitutional, bigoted bullshit the male commenters are sounding off abou - second-class citizenship. It labels you as a bigoted pig, Lizzie.
Jim at April 18, 2011 11:50 AM
If in reality 1 in 4 college women are sexually assaulted, that would require absolutely draconian measures to resolve.
Here's a contemporary example of that..
http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2011/04/_by_cathy_young_1.html
The OCR is recommending that schools relax their adjudication and due process standards in order to make the process more favorable to complainants. Their recommendations cite a study by the NIJ that claims 1/5 female college students 'experience a completed or attempted sexual assault during their school years'.
but..
three-quarters of the female students in this category did not label their experience as rape. (Even when penetration was involved, only 37 percent of the women the study classified as victims of rape by incapacitation believed they had been raped.)
one a side note..
Why in the hell are academic institutions handling this incidents in the first place??
JJ at April 18, 2011 12:30 PM
Jesus, Robert! I'd be afraid of you sober OR shitfaced!
Just sayin' at April 18, 2011 1:27 PM
The numbers don't interest me because I'm not confident we have any idea what the numbers are. Or can know. It might be 1 in 4, it might be 1 in 100, it might be 1 in 1 million. And it changes depending on your demographic. As a married woman, I am unliklely to be date raped.
I don't know many people who have been raped or molested, at least any that have discussed it with me. Not knowing how big of a problem it really is leaves me inclined to treat it like other problems. I'd like to see us responding to it when it happens and giving people the benefit of the doubt when it isn't clear. Rape does not appear to be an epidemic, as some might believe, but nor does it happen so rarely that we can treat it like polio.
MonicaP at April 18, 2011 4:13 PM
"Should we really count a quick boob grab I got from some sixth-grader" - man, you had boobs in 6th grade? I thought jewish girls only had the biggest boobs(http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthisiswhatwedonow.blogspot.com%2F2006%2F08%2Fhow-come-jewish-girls-have-biggest.html&ei=ECatTYqUKsLSgQfElZX_Cw&usg=AFQjCNG4Ufjafi6kER0uMtG9dwmP15mI9A) , I didn't know they got boobs earliest in life as well
Redrajesh at April 18, 2011 11:06 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/17/stop_quoting_bu.html#comment-2055826">comment from Redrajesh"Should we really count a quick boob grab I got from some sixth-grader"
I was a late bloomer, but he grabbed at what little was there.
Amy Alkon at April 18, 2011 11:26 PM
The problem Lizzie, is that pesky little thing called the burden of proof.
Someone can prove that they were struck. Black eyes, bruises, etc.
You can't prove the "why" of why they were struck. What was said between two people is forever lost if someone else is not present and observing.
And if all it takes to charge a man is that a woman says that he said something...well then we've just thrown justice right out the window.
The dirtbag in question cannot be charged without some form of evidence. And he said/she said, is about as dubious as: I heard from my brother's barber that his neighbor did X, Y, & Z.
------------------------
Just Sayin, heh, well its my job to be scary when the occasion calls for it. That is a different subject though. More to the point here can you make a well reasoned argument for why any woman should ever be able to abdicate responsibility for any of her decisions, that cannot be equally well applied in the very same instance to the man against whom she may wish to press charges?
Can you describe how, with innocent until proven guilty remaining an intact principle, we might reduce or eliminate the burden of proof on the prosecution?
When two people are alone together, only they know what happened, and when both are alone and intoxicated, neither of them can be sure either way. How can we expect to put such cases to trial, and come out with a just result? Some occasions yes, there will certainly be a guilty party, but any attempt to make it easier to convict the guilty will inevitably convict the innocent as well. And it is a founding principle of our justice system that it is better that ten guilty go free, than one innocent suffer.
Feminists and the like would sooner see ten innocent men in jail, than one rapist escape. And since it is difficult to convict in "gray areas" when the law is black and white, they have looked to make the law gray as well, and muddy the metaphorical waters, to reduce the burden of proof, to try cases that, even where I will concede a crime may have occured, there is equal probability that none did at all.
Unfortunate things do happen, and yes, sometimes people will "get away" with things because the crime is so hard to prove. But if it is easy to assume guilt, then "just sayin" might just be enough to convict you as well.
I can't help but think of the Kobe Bryant case, no evidence to speak of except for bruising and tearing, and that can and does happen even where no violence or force is used to compel sexual compliance. How is such baseless prosecution to be called justice?
And that is what I am "Just Sayin". :) Pleasant days?
Robert at April 19, 2011 2:56 AM
MonicaP Says:
“The numbers don't interest me because I'm not confident we have any idea what the numbers are.”
Wouldn’t this logically imply that you should be even *more* interested in the actual numbers?
What you are saying is a lot like suggesting that since we are not confident in the total number of people with a particular infectious and deadly disease that the actual number isn’t of interest. I suspect that doctors and people at places like the CDC and the WHO wouldn’t agree with that perspective.
When I lack knowledge that I deem to be important in addressing a particular problem, that information becomes even more important to me, not less important.
“Or can know. It might be 1 in 4, it might be 1 in 100, it might be 1 in 1 million. And it changes depending on your demographic.”
I think it is a copout to say that the number of rape victims in any demographic is somehow an impossible quantity to calculate, estimate, or otherwise quantify in a reliable manner.
What you are saying here is that we really don’t have the tools to distinguish between 6 orders of magnitude. That isn’t a small factor.
So while I agree that we might not be able to distinguish between say 1 in 4 and 1 in 6... We should definitely be able to distinguish between 1 in 4 and 1 in 100 or 1 in 1 million.
These are not small differences we are talking about here, these are dramatic differences on the order of someone not being able to distinguish between the age of the earth being closer to 4 billion years or closer to 4000 years.
What you are suggesting actually is the same sort of argument some biblical literalists put forth. They essentially say that since scientists can’t pin point the age of the earth to the exact second, that any number is as valid as any other. They are also off by 6 orders of magnitude by the way. Like I said, these are not small differences, they don’t simply get lost in the noise during data collection.
“Not knowing how big of a problem it really is leaves me inclined to treat it like other problems.”
I’m not even sure that this means. Is there some generic problem solving routine that applies to all problems of unknown size?
“I'd like to see us responding to it when it happens and giving people the benefit of the doubt when it isn't clear.”
Right… but who do you actually give the benefit of the doubt to? There are two people involved in a rape accusation and from a legal standpoint you can’t give the “benefit of the doubt” to both the defendant and the plaintiff.
You can certainly treat both people with care and respect, but in the court of law the person who traditionally gets the benefit of the doubt is the person being accused, not the accuser. Because of rampant misconstruing of the numbers some people actually advocate flipping this on its head and essentially making the accused guilty until proven innocent.
That wouldn’t exactly be treating it like other problems, and it is definitely something that needs rigorous justification if you are going to do. That justification cannot be separated from the true extent of the problem.
“Rape does not appear to be an epidemic, as some might believe, but nor does it happen so rarely that we can treat it like polio.”
And how exactly do we treat polio for example? Every member of our population is vaccinated against polio during childhood.
Your own words suggest that to handle the rape issue we need to do something more drastic than recommending medical intervention on all children of a certain age.
Exactly what do you suggest?
Reality at April 19, 2011 10:02 AM
Knowing a relatively accurate figure is primarily important in terms of deciding how to allocate resoures to treating a particular issue, rape vs say...murder or credit card fraud. Unfortunately knowing even a relative figure is difficult because unlike auto theft, where a vehicle is obviously missing, or murder, where someone is obviously dead and the cause frequently easy to determine, the crime of rape is very difficult to prove. Sexual contact can be proven, but force or coersion is not always so easy.
Because it is so easy to lay a false accusation, and by contrast actual victims may have little or even no interest in reporting the crime against them, the numbers are constantly being muddied with no apparent way to clear them.
I agree, I'd be very interested in a reasonably accurate figure.
But what is more important than an accurate figure for its frequency is an appropriate standard of justice to determine guilt or innocence for the accused, and suitable sentencing to bring justice for the victim.
Giving people the benefit of the doubt...well...pardon me but unless I'm grossly mistaken we do that through the dictum of "Innocent until PROVEN guilty." It isn't, "Innocent until accused". Guilt musn't be "reasonably likely" or "believable" it must be beyond all reasonable doubt. So the answer to your question "Who do yoou give the benefit of the doubt to?" Is patently obvious. To the accused, just as you've said.
The solution, to my mind at least, is very simple.
Provide the public with easily navigable and concise information about the resources available to them if they fall victim to a crime. Provide a step by step description of what will happen when they file a complaint.
Provide by the same token, black and white legislation describing what constitutes the crime in question.
Provide a clear set of sentencing guidelines which ensure that violent offenders serve extensive sentences without cutting their time short, and jail for good the ones who are classified as repeat offenders.
Enshrine a significant burden of evidence to protect the rights of the accused from impossible to prosecute he said/she said accusations.
And in schools teach teenagers the proper means to protect themselves and maintain their sense of personal responsibility for their behavior.
These are a few of the basics things I would do to approach the problem.
Robert at April 20, 2011 11:32 AM
There is no outrage in justice, but there are a lot of people who think that justice should serve it.
Radwaste at April 21, 2011 4:22 AM
"The problem Lizzie, is that pesky little thing called the burden of proof.
Someone can prove that they were struck. Black eyes, bruises, etc.
You can't prove the "why" of why they were struck. What was said between two people is forever lost if someone else is not present and observing.
And if all it takes to charge a man is that a woman says that he said something...well then we've just thrown justice right out the window."
The dirtbag in question cannot be charged without some form of evidence. And he said/she said, is about as dubious as: I heard from my brother's barber that his neighbor did X, Y, & Z."
Point taken. I wrote the story in a hurry as I was leaving town and left out part. My mother's beef was not so much that they didn't arrest him because, as you mentioned, it's a he said/she said scenario. It was that when the police were questioning her they kept implying that she must have "done something" to encourage him earlier in the day when she hadn't even spoken to him. She found their suggestion especially ludicrous given that she had her 2-year-old by her side. I guess my question would be did the police at least have enough probable cause to search the man for the knife he held on her.
Lizzie at April 24, 2011 6:49 AM
How do you know what stats for rape are real? I am writing an essay over rape for my senior essay and i am curious.
bre at May 17, 2011 7:45 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/17/stop_quoting_bu.html#comment-2144588">comment from breSorry, too big a question and I'm on deadline. You need to look at the methodology and know what good methodology is. You really can't learn this in time for a senior essay. Read my column linked here to see how I took apart bullshit rape stats.
Amy Alkon at May 17, 2011 7:49 AM
I've been struggling with a women's studies class I took for a while. A lot of what she said in class, to me, was nothing more than propagandized information and finding the bloated statistics like 1 in 4 (i've never heard 1 in 3). What is the purpose of these statistics if they aren't honest? It serves only to discredit women who are raped, especially when the feminist definition of rape includes "cohersion" even if she says yes. I think feminists discredit women. I think they do nothing but damage credibility especially when making it ok to demonize men, telling them 1 in 3 or any woman 1 in 3. Do you think people find that statistic even close to accurate? Or do they just say women lie? I know the 8% statistic but don't lessen the crime of rape by calling any sexual assault rape. It disgusts me, it's untrue and it makes it worse for everyone. It only spreads hate toward men, it doesn't improve the situation. It does nothing for our male education other than women lie. I don't think that but many men do especially after taking a women's studies course by a feminist who has no problem using the term "white male" as a very obvious derogatory term no less that the N word. Rape is a horrible thing I'm disgusted anyone could do that but I'm also disgusted that there are people out there willing to make and propagate false statistics, general prejudice no different than what any minority has had to endure for either their hate for men or their desire for power, which I think is a big reason for the "education" I received from this woman. You can put a man in jail for the simple accusation, no matter who it comes from and that is also appalling.
Ian at June 15, 2013 8:12 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2011/04/17/stop_quoting_bu.html#comment-3751109">comment from IanThe 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 stat is bullshit and not reflective of what we think of as rape, but includes, for example, regret if you. As Kate Roiphe noted, if one in four females in this society were raped, wouldn't we know?
Here's my column on this:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2007/05/diddle-he-or-di.html
Amy Alkon at June 16, 2013 5:49 AM
If in reality 1 in 4 college women are sexually assaulted, that would require absolutely draconian measures to resolve.
Kreditevip at December 5, 2014 6:12 PM
Leave a comment