New Study Reveals Shocking High Incidences of Rape [Trigger]

[Spambot5546]

...treating women...

Well, small comfort, the survey was apparently gender-neutral and brothers were allowed to list guys they'd want to rape. That's...better? I guess?

[sje46]

Apparently 20%=1/4 now? I'm honestly confused why people here keep saying "one out of four"....especially considering the 20% figure also includes *attempted* rape.

“any completed or attempted unwanted vaginal (for women), oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force (such as being pinned or held down, or by the use of violence) or threats to physically harm and includes times when the victim was drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent.”

That doesn't seem to include statutory rape. Even if you disagree with AoC laws, there's no doubt that a 12 year old who goes along with sex with an adult very willingly was still raped.

Also, drunk, high? At what point of drunkeness does it become rape? 0.08% blood alcohol? It says "alcohol facilitated" but plenty of people drink a beer or two to loosen up...if they have sex that night, I wouldn't think that they were taken advantage of. And being high? It doesn't specify what drug, even. Are we comfortable saying that having sex with a girl who just smoked weed is rape? What if the other participant is also drunk or high?

According to the study, 44% of the women they classified as raped were penetrated with alcohol/drug facilitation. But they don't define the criteria at all...there's a *lot* of gray area here.

[yurell]

Also, drunk, high? At what point of drunkeness does it become rape? 0.08% blood alcohol? It says "alcohol facilitated" but plenty of people drink a beer or two to loosen up...if they have sex that night, I wouldn't think that they were taken advantage of. And being high? It doesn't specify what drug, even. Are we comfortable saying that having sex with a girl who just smoked weed is rape? What if the other participant is also drunk or high?

I believe that's taken care of with "and unable to consent.”

[Ulc]

Also, drunk, high? At what point of drunkeness does it become rape? 0.08% blood alcohol? It says "alcohol facilitated" but plenty of people drink a beer or two to loosen up...if they have sex that night, I wouldn't think that they were taken advantage of. And being high? It doesn't specify what drug, even. Are we comfortable saying that having sex with a girl who just smoked weed is rape? What if the other participant is also drunk or high?

It becomes rape when either part is unable to give informed consent, exactly as the definition used says.

Having sex with someone that has drunk a beer isn't rape. Having sex with someone that has drunk five beers and have loosened up isn't rape. Having sex with someone passed out or unable to stand on their own legs without support is rape, because their ability to consent is gone.

But seriously, this comes up in every thread about rape - lets not turn this into yet another derailed "define exactly how drunk [person] have to be for it to be rape".

[sje46]

But seriously, this comes up in every thread about rape - lets not turn this into yet another derailed "define exactly how drunk [person] have to be for it to be rape".

Well, why not? If it makes up 44% of the statistic, it's a very pertinent question to ask. Don't get me wrong...I don't think it *isn't* rape if someone had sex with a woman who drank 10 beers and clearly can't make decisions. But how did they decide that and not that? They could have gotten that statistic using anything from "Have you ever had sex after drinking a beer?" to "Have someone ever manipulated you into sex after getting you drunk off 10 beers?" We simply don't know. And there could be political purposes behind changing definitions to make incidence of rape as high as possible, or maybe just bias--note all the people in *this* very thread who said "one out of four women were raped!" when it was actually "One out of five women were raped or attempted raped!"

Don't get me wrong...I'm not saying anything like "only five percent of women were raped, because it doesn't count if they were drunk!" or anything stupid like that. According to Wikipedia, it's something like 15-20% of women have been raped, and judging from the sheer amount of women I know who have been sexually abused in some form, I'm not going to doubt that. But this study...dunno if I can trust it until I actually see the methodology.

Also, how is that derailing? It's extremely on-topic.

[Dauric]

But seriously, this comes up in every thread about rape - lets not turn this into yet another derailed "define exactly how drunk [person] have to be for it to be rape".

<snip>

Also, how is that derailing? It's extremely on-topic.

The problem is that you end up with a situation like every mention of Israel or Palestine, where we've had to quarantine those discussions to their own thread.

The thing is that the topic itself isn't about a new study of Blood Alcohol Content and rape or consent, and alcohol consumption and rape is a small subset of the larger group of rape incidents. There's no new information on BAC and consent here to discuss and BAC and consent, as has been mentioned before, has been discussed to death in other threads. You could have the entire discussion by linking those previous threads here and be done with it as there's no new information to add.

[Роберт]

They could have gotten that statistic using anything from "Have you ever had sex after drinking a beer?" to "Have someone ever manipulated you into sex after getting you drunk off 10 beers?" We simply don't know.

You don't know. I do, because I took less time than it takes to write a post to look. It's appendix C in the study.

When you were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent, how many people ever…

Also, good news everyone, they include:

{if male: a woman or girl made you put your penis in her vagina}?

[Zamfir]

Also, how is that derailing? It's extremely on-topic.

It's also been discussed over and over and over again. If you just want to know what exact methodology and questions the study used, I suggest you look up the study yourself and report on what you find.

EDIT: like Robert did

[sje46]

What I'm asking for is

Also, how is that derailing? It's extremely on-topic.

It's also been discussed over and over and over again. If you just want to know what exact methodology and questions the study used, I suggest you look up the study yourself and report on what you find.

EDIT: like Robert did

Indeed what I'm asking for is methodology. I had actually scanned through the pdf but didn't have the presence of mind to check the apendices. Thanks, roberto.

I see you using mod-voice, but you didn't actually say what it is that's actually unacceptable to talk about. Care to specify what's off-limits?

EDIT: to make it clear, I have no interest in talking about at what specific BAC constitutes rape, which is a silly question to ask. I just wanted to know what questions they asked. Which is what I said...

[Zamfir]

I see you using mod-voice, but you didn't actually say what it is that's actually unacceptable to talk about. Care to specify what's off-limits?

Discussions on what should be drunk enough to count as rape. Because there's been enough of those

[Роберт]

I had actually scanned through the pdf but didn't have the presence of mind to check the apendices.

Whoops, I had assumed you hadn't bothered to look at the actual study. Apologies for the snark.

But yeah, good news is the study seems to have been pretty well done. Bad news is a lot of people have been raped. Fortunately much less then 1 in 4 women, but still way more than you would expect if naive.

I'm not sure what else can be said, except we should all take an active stance against rape and sexual assault. Guys to not always "want it". Sex with someone who is drunk/high/sleeping is never okay unless you've gotten explicit consent beforehand... but even that's questionable, so you for the most part just don't. Jokes about getting someone drunk to bang them? Not cool. Lists of people you would like to rape? Not cool. Objectifying people? Not cool. If someone makes an off comment, don't let it go by. (Well, if you don't have the emotional energy to deal with it that's okay.)

I'm not sure how to decrease that number really, other than trying to shift the culture to make it less acceptable. Fraternities are often a sad state where they actually think rape is ok. And please don't get into victim blaming... sure their are some sensible ways to reduce risks of certain types of rape, they don't need to be discussed here and the "clothing" myth has been debunked. Just thought I'd mention that before it started.

[nitePhyyre]

I'm not sure what else can be said, except we should all take an active stance against rape and sexual assault. Guys to not always "want it". Sex with someone who is drunk/high/sleeping is never okay unless you've gotten explicit consent beforehand... but even that's questionable, so you for the most part just don't. Jokes about getting someone drunk to bang them? Not cool. Lists of people you would like to rape? Not cool. Objectifying people? Not cool. If someone makes an off comment, don't let it go by. (Well, if you don't have the emotional energy to deal with it that's okay.)

The problem with that is that there are a lot of people who get drunk explicitly to have drunk sex. In my experience, there is more drunk sex than drunk rape. It doesn't matter; the only way you are going to have people not bothering to get drunk before sex is if they aren't in any way inhibited about sex. For that to happen, I imagine that sex would have to be nearly as common as a handshake. Once you've gotten to that point though, the idea of rape might be very different. I'm all for making sex not a taboo, but you have to realize that you are playing a loooong game. What's step 1? As for off-comments.

Also, does that mean a woman forcing a man to put his p in her v isn't counted as rape?

Yes. Also, it isn't counted that way in many legal jurisdictions, either.

...I'm not sure how anyone could see that as "not rape" unless

Spoiler:

"if he got it up he must have wanted it" or somesuch BS. But that's in our legal system? WTF?

But I guess that may explain the lower incidence of male rape is they don't count even the most blatant rape as rape?

Actually, when they have:

{if male} try to make you have vaginal sex with them, but sex did not happen?

As a 'yes' to rape, without

{if male} try to make you have vaginal sex with them, but sex did happen?

I'm pretty they are explicitly stating the spoiler'd part.

Well, its good to know I've never been raped, but only because I'm far too virile. That's consolation, I guess. OTOH, apparently,

Unwanted sexual contact (defined as unwanted sexual experiences involving touch but not sexual penetration, such as being kissed in a sexual way, or having sexual body parts fondled or grabbed)

I've been sexually assaulted on too many occasions to count. That's news to me.

[Ulc]

Unwanted sexual contact (defined as unwanted sexual experiences involving touch but not sexual penetration, such as being kissed in a sexual way, or having sexual body parts fondled or grabbed)

I've been sexually assaulted on too many occasions to count. That's news to me.

Well, yeah, I'd definitely count kissing if it's done in a sexual fashion (not just a peck on the cheek) blatantly against my will.

[Qaanol]

About one third of female soldiers in the US military get raped. By other soldiers. And those who report being raped, tend to get punished and demoted.

Time Magazine
The Guardian
BBC
NPR
News Junkie Post
LA Times

According to several studies of the US military funded by the Department of Veteran Affairs, 30% of military women are raped while serving, 71% are sexually assaulted, and 90% are sexually harassed.

Also, and this regards domestic violence rather than rape, but according to Purple Berets, police officers are about four times more likely than others to commit domestic violence. “In two separate studies, 40% of police officers self-report that they have used violence against their domestic partners within the last year. In the general population, it's estimated that domestic violence occurs in about 10% of families.”

[Arancaytar]

Also, and this regards domestic violence rather than rape, but according to Purple Berets, police officers are about four times more likely than others to commit domestic violence. “In two separate studies, 40% of police officers self-report that they have used violence against their domestic partners within the last year. In the general population, it's estimated that domestic violence occurs in about 10% of families.”

HOLY... that's 40% counting only the cases reported by the perpetrators?

[Belial]

Also, and this regards domestic violence rather than rape, but according to Purple Berets, police officers are about four times more likely than others to commit domestic violence. “In two separate studies, 40% of police officers self-report that they have used violence against their domestic partners within the last year. In the general population, it's estimated that domestic violence occurs in about 10% of families.”

They're also a bit more than twice as likely to perpetrate sexual assault.

[Griffin]

HOLY... that's 40% counting only the cases reported by the perpetrators?

And only in the last year! And that seems to be counting the ones that don't even have domestic partners as "not abusers", as well! The amount that have "ever" or even "regularly" abused their domestic partner at some point could be significantly higher, even assuming they are all telling the truth.

(In other words, it's a serious freakin' problem)

And there's no getting away from them, pretty much, making them the absolute worse.

[CorruptUser]

Who would've suspected that having a stressful job where you physically assault most people you spend more than a few minutes with would lead to a homelife with domestic abuse?

[Griffin]

Who would've suspected that having a stressful job where you physically assault most people you spend more than a few minutes with would lead to a homelife with domestic abuse?

Especially when you can get away with it and no one will care. I don't think its surprising that its bad, but I think it's kind of surprising that it is THAT bad.

[Dauric]

Who would've suspected that having a stressful job where you physically assault most people you spend more than a few minutes with would lead to a homelife with domestic abuse?

Especially when you can get away with it and no one will care. I don't think its surprising that its bad, but I think it's kind of surprising that it is THAT bad.

Part of the problem is that the military sends soldiers back stateside and in most cases that's it, the military's interaction with that individual is at an end. There's no program to transition back from "Killing Machine" to "Productive Citizen." IIRC there's voluntary programs, but with a culture that still stigmatizes mental trauma it's difficult for former soldiers to break that mindset and enroll in them.

[nitePhyyre]

Kumar: Excuse, me officer? Let me take a couple of guesses...
You were probably the big asshoe at your high school, right?
Cop: Absolutely right.
Kumar: You used to pick on guys like us everyday right?
Cop: With Pleasure!
Kumar: Then graduation day came, and we went to college, and you went nowhere, and you thought "Oh, hey, how can I still give them shit? Oh, I know, I'll become a cop!" Right? Well congradu-fucking-lations. Your dream has come true."

When 'asshole wife beater' is the default psych profile for a profession, is there any surprise when they are a bunch of asshole wife beaters?

@Dauric: Shit, I hadn't heard that the army is so low on troops that they've started to send police officers to Iraq. I guess all that training cracking the skulls of peaceful protesters will really pay off!

[Dauric]

@Dauric: Shit, I hadn't heard that the army is so low on troops that they've started to send police officers to Iraq. I guess all that training cracking the skulls of peaceful protesters will really pay off!

??? Huh? I was talking about soldiers deployed overseas in combat situations, their tour is up and they get sent home, in some cases directly -home- type home, the're completely out of the army after serving their tour of duty. They're coming from a violent kill-or-be-killed environment to civilian "Ordinary Life" with little or no counseling on making that transition.

If anything the problem would be that one of the professions that many soldiers go in to when returning to civilian life is working as police, which makes the lack of transition assistance that much worse.

Where are you getting this sending police officers to Iraq stuff?

[nitePhyyre]

??? Huh? I was talking about soldiers deployed overseas in combat situations

...and you were the only one...

Spoiler:

Also, and this regards domestic violence rather than rape, but according to Purple Berets, police officers are about four times more likely than others to commit domestic violence. “In two separate studies, 40% of police officers self-report that they have used violence against their domestic partners within the last year. In the general population, it's estimated that domestic violence occurs in about 10% of families.”

HOLY... that's 40% counting only the cases reported by the perpetrators?

And only in the last year! And that seems to be counting the ones that don't even have domestic partners as "not abusers", as well! The amount that have "ever" or even "regularly" abused their domestic partner at some point could be significantly higher, even assuming they are all telling the truth.

Who would've suspected that having a stressful job where you physically assault most people you spend more than a few minutes with would lead to a homelife with domestic abuse?

Especially when you can get away with it and no one will care. I don't think its surprising that its bad, but I think it's kind of surprising that it is THAT bad.

Part of the problem is that the military sends soldiers back stateside and in most cases that's it, the military's interaction with that individual is at an end. There's no program to transition back from "Killing Machine" to "Productive Citizen." IIRC there's voluntary programs, but with a culture that still stigmatizes mental trauma it's difficult for former soldiers to break that mindset and enroll in them.

The conversation went:
Everyone: Wow, cops rape a lot of people!
Dauric: Ya, a large part of that problem is because the military doesn't help them integrate when they get back from war.

[Cathy]

About one third of female soldiers in the US military get raped. By other soldiers. And those who report being raped, tend to get punished and demoted.

??? Huh? I was talking about soldiers deployed overseas in combat situations

...and you were the only one...

The first bit is what I think he was responding to. It made sense to me!

[gmalivuk]

The first bit is what I think he was responding to.

Then perhaps quoting that instead of parts from two other posts about cops would have made that clearer to everyone else...

[miedvied]

I'm surprised no one mentioned this bit:

State-Level Estimates
• Across all types of violence
examined in this report, statelevel estimates varied with
lifetime estimates for women
ranging from 11.4% to 29.2% for
rape; 28.9% to 58% for sexual
violence other than rape; and
25.3% to 49.1% for rape, physical
violence, and/or stalking by an
intimate partner.
• For men, lifetime estimates
ranged from 10.8% to 33.7% for
sexual violence other than rape;
and 17.4% to 41.2% for rape,
physical violence, and/or stalking
by an intimate partner.

The similarities between males and females were surprising. To me, at least. I was less surprised to find that most forms of sexual violence men suffered were administered by other men. Of course, they did conflate a lot of stuff to get those overall numbers. Probably total bullshit.

Browsing through the methods, I see a significant selection bias involved in recruiting cases by Random Digit Dialing (RDD). This has an equally probable chance of dialing any particular person, but has a bias towards the unemployed, unstable, chronically ill, etc. because they tend to be more available to phone calls (this bias has been less exaggerated with the rise of cell phone RDD, since in the days of landlines ...). Since sexual assault is associated with lasting emotional and physical harm, one would expect this to then over-represent sexual assault victims. The difference is there - only about one in three people cooperated if you count all the folks that wouldn't pick up, but 4 out of 5 of eligible* pick-ups cooperated. Still, I doubt this was a big enough bias to account for any real chunk of the highly prevalent sexual violence.

There's a secondary element of selection bias in there, of course; with all the modern stigma associated with rape, I do believe that the stigma for men to admit rape is much more severe. As such, I expect a differential misclassification there.

Their "sexual violence" category conflates "unwanted kissing" with "vaginal penetration via physical force or threat." That's too wide a gap for me, so while I have no problems with their particular statistics, I find their "summarized" stats (like the ones I quoted up top) to be total bullshit. If men's 33.7% are half unwanted gropings, and women's half unwanted vaginal penetration, those are highly dissimilar numbers. Their other categories are similarly broad (Stalking includes unwanted emails alongside being followed with spy equipment).

I suspect that there's a recall bias here which is going to underestimate the proportion of minor sexual violence. That is, ill people tend to be better about recalling possible exposures and symptoms - they dwell on it. Healthy people don't. There's probably a similar effect for rape victims to tend to be more conscious of sexual violence and aggression, even relatively minor offenses. I imagine the remainder of people would be comparatively less conscious of it, and as such victims will tend to show larger lists of "events" than non-victims, thus underplaying minor sexual violence in the general population and making victims look more victimized by comparison.

To the extent that the majority of perpetrators are intimate partners or acquaintances, I expect the previous effect to be heightened. If hubby gets a little too grabby but backs off, you probably won't recall that as an event. If hubby turns to rapist, that event will likely be much more vivid in one's mind. Obviously this will also tend to bias the results in favor of a lower incidence of events, anonymous survey or no.

The "Indicators of Impact" thing was absolute bullshit. If you were assaulted, they asked if you suffered X as a result (i.e., PTSD symptoms, fearfulness, depressive symptoms). Pick up a phone and call 1,000 people asking if after they had "Newman's National Hot Dogs" last month, they suffered any of the following symptoms. I guarantee they'll report a higher incidence than the general population. Asking people to self-assess past mental traits and link them causally? Shit. I don't doubt that rape victims *do* suffer those things, but that statistic is BS.

They appear to have taken great pains to train their interviewers and monitor their progress. that's awesome; interviewer bias could've completely messed with this study's results.

So. WHO CAN GUESS I TOOK AN EPIDEMIOLOGY FINAL YESTERDAY?



* I don't know what they considered for "eligibility."