About these ads

Quiz: How did Reddit’s atheist community respond to a woman’s account of rape?

Here’s a little one-question quiz to see how much you know about Reddit’s Atheism subreddit.

QUESTION ONE: A woman describes being raped by a “friend” while both were intoxicated (though she doesn’t call it rape). Do the r/atheism regulars:

a) Respond with sympathy and support

b) Attack her and furiously downvote her posts, with the assistance of one of the moderators of r/mensrights, then return to posting and upvoting rape jokes

BONUS QUESTION: True or False: Someone on r/menrights links to her comment as “an example of how and why many people believe that rape is everywhere… because their definition of rape includes every sexual misadventure.” The most heavily upvoted comment in the r/mensrights thread declares that the woman who was raped “sounds like a delusional sheltered teen.”

Yes, the correct answers here are the ones you assumed were correct.

Here’s the woman’s post describing what happened to her.

She gives more details on what happened in other, also-highly-downvoted comments.

One highly upvoted rape joke from elsewhere in the thread:

Hilarious!

Amazingly, despite all the jokes and the victim blaming/attacking going on, the thread also contains some highly upvoted comments lamenting the tendency of people to blame the victim in rape cases. Apparently, when a rape victim is drunk, it’s not rape, even when she repeatedly says “no” and gives in because she’s scared, so it’s fine to attack away, and even to accuse the victim of being a rapist too.

This enables Reddit Atheists not only to blame the victim of rape without feeling guilty, or admitting that this is what they’re doing, while simultaneously feeling self-righteous in their condemnation of religious people doing the exact same thing.

And because their rape jokes are also couched as jokes about religious people’s views on rape, they can feel self-righteous while making them too.

Sometimes the actions of Reddit Atheists cause me to begin to doubt just a teensy weensey bit that “atheists are a community that’s pre-selected for clear thinking and empiricism,” as one commenter in r/mensrights put it not that long ago.

EDITED TO ADD: Thanks again to ShitRedditSays for highlighting this awful thread.

EDITED TO ADD 2: More SRS discussion, courtesy of Holly.

About these ads

Posted on January 25, 2012, in douchebaggery, evil women, false accusations, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, rape, rapey, reddit, that's not funny!. Bookmark the permalink. 266 Comments.

  1. I’m not trying to assert that the figures are the Truth, I’m just saying its what I read somewhere.

    So those weren’t intended to be factual statements?

    http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/381484/april-12-2011/jon-kyl-tweets-not-intended-to-be-factual-statements

  2. “Simple lack of consent with no further violence or harm is not the exception — it is the norm. You can’t punish the norm with 20 years in prison.”

    This may well be the creepiest thing I’ve ever seen anyone say on the internet. Congratulations, Antz – you have successfully outdone 4chan.

    You better get on with the plan to build sexbots, because you really shouldn’t be interacting with any sort of living being in a sexual way.

  3. “Simple lack of consent with no further violence or harm is not the exception — it is the norm. You can’t punish the norm with 20 years in prison.”

    So was sati.

  4. I’m not sure I am going to be able to read this without going to the next atheist meeting and raging at atheists smart enough to avoid Reddit.

  5. Simple lack of consent with no further violence or harm is not the exception — it is the norm. You can’t punish the norm with 20 years in prison.

    Your mind is about to be blown. You’ve bought into this cultural framing of heterosexual intercourse as a conquest, something that the man must take from the woman. This is exactly what Andrea Dworkin meant in that famous passage you MRAs just looooooooooove to quote.

  6. A huge part of the problem here is that our society’s shame and furtive relationship to sex provides a fucking lovely hiding place for rapists. When so many young people are so terrified of making their true desires known because they run counter to our society’s myths about sexuality (women only want twue wuv or they are dirty sluts, men are up for it ALL THE TIME) there is a much greater chance of them using alcohol and other bad decision making processes to kill the terror around getting what they want.

    There’s not anything inherently problematic about tossing back a drink or two and having teh sex. The problem is that when people are using alcohol as a coping mechanism for fear around expressing their desires, it creates a hotbed of scared people making shitty decisions. This allows rapists to point at other people making shitty decisions that are NOT rape and equivocating the behavior.

    How do we fix this? Comprehensive sex education and changing the culture such that people feel comfortable discussing their desires in an open and honest way. Then there will be far less ground cover for the rapist assholes.

  7. makomk: I see. What you are arguing is either feminists are lying hypocrites, or they are in charge, and failing to live up to the things they say.

  8. darksidecat: Of the 1.270.000 women raped the last 12 months(2010) ( including attempts) 98% reported male perpetrators.
    Of the 1.267.000 men “made to penetrate” the last 12 months(2010) (including attempts) 79% reported female perpetrators. (NISVS 2010 Report from CDC p.17-19 and 24). (Go read the report yourself if you doubt this numbers. The definition used for rape and “being made to penetrate someone else” is on page 17.)

    Not quite parity, but a lot closer than many women like to consider. Yet they should.

    I must also correct a misconception Shore is strengthening when s/he in an earlier comment said:

    It is really not hard to have drunken consensual sex. Not the least because when one or both parties (or more) are too drunk to consent, they’re usually also not thinking/feeling very sexy, or the penis is not working, ect.

    This implies that an erection (which is what I presume is meant by “working”) is a sign that the person is sober enough to consent. This is false – whickey dick is not a given and using that as a sign of being able to consent is exactly like using the presence of vaginal lubrication as a sign of being able to consent. Just not right.

    A working penis is not a good enough sign that the owner is capable of consent!!

  9. “The reason AppleGods faced so much hostility from MRAs is that most men live in fear that they could wind up wrongly accused of rape because they unintentionally over-played their assigned role as “sexual persuer” after mis-interpreting signals from the “sexual persued”. Until you understand what I meant by that last sentence, you don’t understand shit.”

    Misinterpreting signals? How about ASKING.

  10. @Tamen, unlike you, I am capable of actually reading reports, the report lists 17.5% of women as the victim of attempted or forced penetration (and 1.4% men, but as this is a very ciscentric report, it is a fair assumption that these men were deemed to be penetrated by men). This compares to 4.8 of men listed as forced to penetrated (it is also not impossible that cis men are perps in some of these cases as well, as oral and anal penetration counts, so forced oral on anal sex of a man by a man could be listed her as well) with 6.0% attempts, making it 10.8%, however, it is worth noting that this number removes the fairly high rate of use of alchohol and date rape drugs, which brings the forced penetration of women up to 25.5%, more than double, even assuming, which is not the case at all (I will get back to this, it is included in the study), that ever man who was forced to penetrate was the victim of a female perp. Also, if you remove that 10.8% from “other sexual violence” of men and put it in rape, the discrepancy of other sexual violence against women vs that against men further widens, resulting in 44.6% of women as victims of other sexual assault (many of which are, de facto, rape, but not listed as such, such as “sexual coercion”) vs 11.4% of men, which is pretty staggering.

    In addition, of women who had been raped or sexually assaulted, they were more likely to have experienced it from multiple perpetrators than men:

    Almost three-quarters of female rape victims (71.2%) reported being raped by one perpetrator. For female rape victims, 1 in 6 (16.4%) reported two perpetrators and 1 in 8 (12.4%) reported three or more perpetrators in their lifetime (Figure 2.1).
    Almost half of female victims (45.8%) of lifetime sexual violence other than rape reported one perpetrator, approximately one-quarter (23.4%) reported two perpetrators, and just under one-third (30.8%) reported three or more perpetrators (Figure 2.1). For male victims of rape and sexual violence other than rape, the large majority (86.6% and 92.1%, respectively) reported one perpetrator in their lifetime (data not shown). Too few male victims reported two or more perpetrators to produce a reliable estimate.

    Moreover, men were far more likely to be the pepetrators against other men than women against women, making a significant portion of perpetrators of assaults against men also men:

    Most perpetrators of all forms of sexual violence against women were male. For female rape victims, 98.1% reported only male perpetrators. Additionally, 92.5% of female victims of sexual violence other than rape reported only male perpetrators. For male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the type of sexual violence experienced. The majority of male rape victims (93.3%) reported only male perpetrators. For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion (83.6%), and unwanted sexual contact (53.1%). For non-contact unwanted sexual experiences, approximately half of male victims (49.0%) reported only male perpetrators and more than one-third (37.7%) reported only female perpetrators (data not shown).

    http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

    Reading, math, and statistical analysis how the fuck do they work? e_e

  11. Darksidecat:
    I specifically talked about the “last 12 months” prevalency figures of the NISVS 2010 report. It is bordering on dishonest to “disprove” my quotations from the report (tables on page 18 an 19) by referring to the “Lifetime” prevalency numbers. The lifetime prevalency numbers do show a greater difference in numbers between male and female victims. However, when one is talking about the situation now, about the risk of getting raped/made to penetrate someone else now then the “last 12 months” prevalency number is more interesting and more valid than lifetime prevalency numbers.
    If you had argued why you don’t want to consider the “last 12 months” prevalency numbers you at least would’ve engaged in a manner which would come across as more honest to me. If you had mustered up any justification about why the “last 12 months” prevalency numbers should be disregarded other than “because” I could even have learned something. But instead you simply disregarded my qualification that I talked about the “last 12 months” prevalency numbers and accused me

    I chose to compare the “rape” and “being made to penetrate someone else” (quotes to signify that I am talking about the definitions for these used by NISVS 2010 on p.17) because the definitionion of these two are very similar – only differing in the

    That aside:

    For someone claiming to be able to read the report it must be embarrasing that you made a mistake in the very first sentence in your comment:

    @Tamen, unlike you, I am capable of actually reading reports, the report lists 17.5% of women as the victim of attempted or forced penetration

    The number 17.5 only occur two places in the Report. One is the rape prevalency number for Missouri an the other is the stalker victimization prevalency number for Idaho. The number for lifetime prevalency numbers for female victims of rape is 18.3% (p18). Incapable as I am of reading a report I at least did not pull any numbers out of my ass and presented them as findings of the report.

    And then you go on to make assumptions about things that are stated in the report:
    (about rape)

    …and 1.4% men, but as this is a very ciscentric report, it is a fair assumption that these men were deemed to be penetrated by men.

    Even the text you quoted from the report states:

    The majority of male rape victims (93.3%) reported only male perpetrators.

    That means that 6.7% of raped men were raped by a woman. No need for an assumption if you’d done what you accused me of not being capable of: reading the report.

    You then go on to make speculations about how many of the “being made to penetrate” victims have a male perpetrator:
    (about forced to penetrate):

    …it is also not impossible that cis men are perps in some of these cases as well, as oral and anal penetration counts, so forced oral on anal sex of a man by a man could be listed her as well.

    No need to speculate here either. It is listed as well. The quote you yourself kindly provided from the report gives the answer here as well:

    a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (79.2%)

    Which leaves 20.8% of the perpetrators being male.

    If one add rape and “Other sexual violence” for the “last 12 months” prevalency numbers in the tables on page 18 and 19 one gets:
    Women: 1.1% + 5.6% -> 6.7%
    Men : * + 5.3% -> 5.3%
    * too high relative standard error or too small cell size.

    This paints a completely different picture than the lifetime prevalency numbers you “quoted”.

    As I said earlier; not quite gender parity in victimization for the last 12 months (2010), but a lot closer than most people would believe.

    Combined with the findings that with the exception of rape (as defined in the report) and “non-contact unwanted sexual experiences” male victims reported a majority of female perpetrators:

    For three of the other forms of sexual violence, a majority of male victims reported only female perpetrators: being made to penetrate (79.2%), sexual coercion (83.6%), and unwanted sexual contact (53.1%).

    (p.24)

    It is not a gender parity in perpetrators, but it is a lot closer than most people believe. I personally believe that awareness of this may reduce the number of male victims.

    The “last 12 months” prevalency number for male victims of “being made to penetrate someone else” is stated in the report to be 1.1% which again is estimated at 1.267.000 men (p.19).
    79.2% of these reported only female perpetrators (p.24). I dare say that this is a much higher rate of female perpetrators than most people expected and the response is telling. The 12 months prevalency numbers from the NISVS 2010 Report are simply being ignored, as exemplified by you who did not engage with me on the “last 12 months” findings I dare say I correctly reported from the NISVS 2010.

    Please do point out to me if any number’s I’ve quoted is not written in the report. Then I can either correct myself or I can explain why I wrote it that way (for instance I made the assumption that 79.2% female only perpetrators means that the remaining 20.8% of perpetraters are male only. They could be both, but since the report doesn’t break it further down I made that assumption to be on the “safe” side).

  12. Some sentences were chopped of, sorry for that. Here are the full sentences:

    “But instead you simply disregarded my qualification that I talked about the “last 12 months” prevalency numbers and accused me of not being capable of reading a report.

    “I chose to compare the “rape” and “being made to penetrate someone else” (quotes to signify that I am talking about the definitions for these used by NISVS 2010 on p.17) because the definitionion of these two are very similar – only differing in the verbs used: “being penetrated” and “being made to penetrate”. I consider both to be rape and both are considered rape legally where I live. I’ll disclose that I am a victim of the latter category.

  13. Also this:

    Moreover, men were far more likely to be the pepetrators against other men than women against women, making a significant portion of perpetrators of assaults against men also men:

    The number of women on women perpetrators does not affect the portion of perpetrators of assaults against men who are also men contrary to what your use of the word “making” implies in the sentence above.

  14. Yes, Tamen, you cited the 12 months, but why you only cited that number in a study that had lifetime estimates with much different numbers as you sole evidence for gender parity in rape was extremely telling. This study does not prove what you implied it did, not in the slightest.

    The number 17.5 only occur two places in the Report. One is the rape prevalency number for Missouri an the other is the stalker victimization prevalency number for Idaho. The number for lifetime prevalency numbers for female victims of rape is 18.3% (p18).

    Quick, what’s 12.3+5.2 (the numbers for percents that have experienced completed or attempted rape). Addition, yay! The methodology of the study leaves room for overlap, if you look at the numbers on the subsections, you will quickly note that they add up to more than the percent total. Presumably, this is because the same victim could have more than one type of victimization, so there is some degree of overlap.

    Really, you haven’t demonstrated your claim at all. You sole piece of evidence is a study which has massively differenct conclusions than your claim.

  15. Darksidecat:
    Ok, I missed that you added those two categories rather than using the weighted sum the Report reported. Mea culpa on that one.

    I claimed nothing else other than that the NISVS 2010 found a much closer gender parity in victimization in the last 12 months than most people believe. And that a much larger number of men reported a female perpetrator than most people believe.
    Do you contest that result? If so, care to tell me why you contest that?

    Please point me to the any other conclusions I have stated. Exactly what do you think my claim is? This is not a rhetorical question, because it seems clear to me that you make some assumptions about what I am writing. Bring those assumptions to the table and then I can clarify whether that was what I meant or not. If you think I implied something you disagree with then ask whether I meant to imply that or this and I’d
    gladly clariify and then one can take the argument from there. But please don’t just assume
    because as you’ve surely heard; “assume makes an ASS out of U and ME”.

    I have also stated why I looked at the “last 12 month” prevalence number over the “lifetime” prevalency number, but you blatantly ignored that reason and assumed some “extremely telling” motivation on my part. You know, you could just have asked why I quoted the 12 months prevalency figures and read my answer – no need for making assumptions.

    I’ll restate my reason here: When it comes to the risk of being raped now the “last 12 months” figures gives a more accurate picture than the lifetime figures. When it comes to how to prevent future rapes the last 12 months figures are more relevant because the represent the current risk more than the lifetime figures does. I could also cite research showing that studies based on recollection show worse quality (as in underreporting) results the further back in time the incidents occured – which when one think about it is a simple function of how memory works.

    If you find it extremely telling that I cited the 12 months figures and not the lifetime figures from this report, should I find it extremely telling that just about no MSM and no feminist blogs/articles cites the last 12 months figures but only cites the lifetime prevalency numbers? Should I find it extremely telling that nowhere in your reply to my first comment did you mention the 12 month prevalency numbers at all? I prefer to point out the “last 12 months” prevalency figures and say that people should reconsider what they think they know about this subject in light of those results as well.

    I’ll extend you the courtesy you don’t want to extend to me and ask you why you think the lifetime prevalency numbers are more important and why anyone mentioned the last 12 months prevalency numbers deserve a “dressing down”?

  16. When it comes to the risk of being raped now the “last 12 months” figures gives a more accurate picture than the lifetime figures. When it comes to how to prevent future rapes the last 12 months figures are more relevant because the represent the current risk more than the lifetime figures does.

    This makes no sense whatsoever. People live their entire lives, not just twelve months of it. In addition, it’s not overly helpful for a woman who is 20 to know that women of 40 are less likely to be raped this year than her (http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/apvsvc.pdf) , watering down the numbers, when she is raped or sexually assaulted. Using the Bureau of Justice’s numbers women have a 13.8% rate of rape and sexual assault victimization in the 18-21 range, but a 2.6% rate in the 40-49 range It’s a cold comfort to the 19 year old who is raped this year that her mother was likely raped around the same age, rather than in the past year.

    And that’s not even going into things like the issue of multiple incidents (after all, the report you cited does have the glaring issue in determining risk of counting each person’s experience of a certain thing only once, grouping single incident victims with those who were victimized multiple times).

    I could also cite research showing that studies based on recollection show worse quality (as in underreporting) results the further back in time the incidents occured – which when one think about it is a simple function of how memory works.

    I don’t even know what the fuck you mean by that. Are you suggesting that people routinely forget being raped? And do you think that once the rape is over, the effects are over? That these women who were very likely raped in their late teens and early twenties never, ever live with the effects as older women? (The same concept applies to victims of other genders as well, esp. considering that most studies of rape and age on male victims suggest they are even more skewed younger than female ones).

    …why anyone mentioned the last 12 months prevalency numbers deserve a “dressing down…

    The problem isn’t that you mentioned it, but that you specifically chose it and presented it as your sole evidence to try and mislead people regarding your claim. You’ve claimed this study supports a position not consistent with its overall results, and have done so by attempting to outright dismiss the larger results of the study. That isn’t mentioning, it’s flagrant cheery-picking.

  17. Darksidecat:

    Lifetime & 12 months prevalency numbers
    Lifetime prevalency numbers says something about how likely it is that a given person is a rape survivor and how survivors are distributed. This can be a useful number to decide how to apply support and help for rape victims.

    When it comes to rape prevention programs I believe the “last 12 months” prevalency numbers are more relevant because we want to combat current attitudes and beliefs. The most current numbers are obviously the most relevant numbers here. “Last 3 months” prevalency numbers would’ve been even more relevant than “last 12 months” figures. The NISVS 2010 Report included “Last 12 months” prevalency numbers so those are the best figures to say something about the risk for any given person to be raped today (on an aggregated level).

    It seems that the report show that there seem to have been a sharp increase in risk for men to be raped (12 months prevalency numbers are just 4x lifetime prevalency numbers for men vs a ratio of 16x for women).

    “Forgetting” rape
    I know firsthand that the effect of a rape is not over after the rape is over, so no, I don’t believe that. I also know that I was confused about what happened to me for a period of time, mainly because I had been taught that I should feel lucky when I got laid, taught that my erection meant that I wanted it, taught that only men rape, taught that I should be careful about getting consent from my partners, but never told that any women should be careful about getting consent from me, taught that women don’t really want sex.

    I am not alone in this. It is not uncommon that people don’t call what happened to them rape even though it technically/legally was rape. A much cited study by Mary Koss found that many women said no when asked whether they had been raped while answering yes to specific questions which were about situation clearly describing rape without using the word rape. I believe those women who said they weren’t raped even though they were do live with the effects. I know I lived with the effect of my rape even at the time when I was unable to recognize it for what it was.

    People don’t rutinely forget being raped, but depending on what one mean by forget there actually are quite a bit of research that show that a significant portion of people don’t disclose for instance childhood sexual abuse when asked about it later as adults.
    For instance this study (Widom and Morris 1997) found substantial underreporting among people with documented cases of childhood sexual abuse who did not report that when they were surveyed in young adulthood: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=166614
    That study is behind a paywall, but a search revealed this page quoting from this study and also linking to a lot of other studies on the matter of amnesia/forgetting of childhood sexual abuse: http://www.jimhopper.com/memory/#wid97
    The quotations from the (Widom and Morris 1997) show that men were more likely than women to underreport actual cases of childhood sex abuse.

    In fact I’d argue that living with the effects of something you can’t recall is very possible and that it is not a good situation as it can make it more difficult to address and mitigate the effects since the cause is unknown to you.

    In 2008 the National Crime Victimization Survey underwent a redesign. The feasability of using “12 months” vs “6 months” reference period were one of the changes discussed. I’ll quote from a report on that redesign:

    Prior research has determined that longer survey reference periods are associated with increases in memory lapses associated with both remembering the occurrence of events as well as accurately recalling the details of events including when they actually occurred.

    http://www.fcsm.gov/09papers/Rand_X-B.doc (p.25)
    This is not a controversial statement and it is something that survey designers very much have in mind when they design surveys relying on self-reporting. In the NCVS case they wanted to reduce costs by running the survey once a year and asking the respondents to recall incidents for the last 12 months rather than running the survey twice a year and asking the respondents to recall incidents for the last 6 months.

    Multiple incidents
    Yes, the NISVS study does not count multiple victimizations well at all and you stated earlier an argument that women more often than men report more than one perpetrator. However, that is not the whole picture – a piece is missing. The same perpetrator can victimize the same victim multiple times. Considering that a lot of both men and women in the report reported that the perpetrator was an intimate partner this can be a significant part of multiple victimization and we really can’t say anything about gender distribution here since the report don’t talk about it. I hope future surveys shed more light on the issue of multiple victimizations.

    Claim
    So I am at fault for presenting the last 12 months prevalency figures from the NISVS 2010 Report as sole evidence for the last 12 months prevalency figures from the NISVS 2010 Report? That this somehow means I dismiss the larger result of the survey? What exactly do you mean by larger? Do you mean something simple as Lifetime is a larger time period than the last 12 months? Or something else? If the last 12 months prevalency numbers dismisses (invalidates?) the survey, then why is it included in the report itself? I did claim by making that comparison between men and women that rape and being made to penetrate someone else are comparable. I did so because I am of the opinion that being made to penetrate someone else as defined by the CDC is rape. Legislators where I live agree.

    So what I am curious about now is what YOU think of the “last 12 months” prevalency numbers? What do you think they mean? Do you consider them irrelevant and worthless, if so why? Do you think that they are inaccurate, if so why? Would you agree that if both lifetime and last 12 months prevalency numbers are accurate then the low ratio between them can indicate a trend of a high increase of male victimIzation (considering the average age of male respondents being somewhere between 40 and 50 year old)?

  18. Tamen: I claimed nothing else other than that the NISVS 2010 found a much closer gender parity in victimization in the last 12 months than most people believe.

    You claimed it was damned near 50/50. That’s not quite the same as,”closer than most people believe”.

    And you admit to limiting the actual data, because the lifetime numbers don’t support you. So you glossed that, and then implied that (even if the 50/50 numbers for 12 the past 12 mos were exactly as you described, which DSC has called into question), were true over a longer period of time.

    It’s possible (though I don’t really believe it), that the ratio has slipped to being about 50/50, but that will take several years to determine, and isn’t what you were saying.

    When it comes to the risk of being raped now the “last 12 months” figures gives a more accurate picture than the lifetime figures. When it comes to how to prevent future rapes the last 12 months figures are more relevant because the represent the current risk more than the lifetime figures does.

    Because one year isn’t a lifetime. And a lifetime is the real question. From one year I can’t even pretend to extrapolate the likelihood of being raped in my lifetime. All I can do is say, “In this year, this happened”. But that’s, to all intents and purposes, a single datum point. It’s not a valid basis for the extrapolation you are making.

  19. “Last 3 months” prevalency numbers would’ve been even more relevant than “last 12 months” figures.

    By that reasoning, the last month would be more relevant than the last three months, the last week more relevant than the last month, and the last 24 hours more relevant than the last week…until if you aren’t being raped at the very second they call you, it doesn’t count.

    Also, they’re not more relevant, because rates of victimization (as I demonstrated above) vary widely in different stages of life.

    That study is behind a paywall, but a search revealed this page quoting from this study and also linking to a lot of other studies on the matter of amnesia/forgetting of childhood sexual abuse

    And, yeah, you are now claiming that abuse victims forget it. In addition, it isn’t clear how asking the lifetime question would result in more under reporting than the twelve month question.

    Do you mean something simple as Lifetime is a larger time period than the last 12 months?

    Everyone on this forum has lived more than 12 months (as do large numbers of people), and most rape victims are over 12 months old, just in case you couldn’t figure that out on your own.

    Would you agree that if both lifetime and last 12 months prevalency numbers are accurate then the low ratio between them can indicate a trend of a high increase of male victimIzation

    It doesn’t prove this at all. The answer is “I don’t know, why the fuck are you jumping to huge assumptions not warranted by the data?”

    You are the one claiming that this study has proven gender parity in rape, and it has not done so in any way, shape or form. You’re just pulling this out of your ass and hoping no one factchecks you.

  20. If you want to prove an increasing trend of male victimization then what you need to do is take last year’s figures, and compare them to the year before that, and then the one before that, and so on. Pretending that the lifetime figures are less significant or unimportant just because they don’t seem to support your point is disengenous.

  21. Pecunium:
    I claimed nothing of the sort. I quoted a specific finding of the NISVS 2010 Report. That almost as many men have been made to penetrate someone else as women have been the last 12 months (as measured during 2010) is not a claim I made up. It is a finding of the report. You can look it up in the tables for men and women on page 18 and 19 in the NISVS 2010 Report. Darksidecat provided a link in a previous comment.

    I haven’t implied that the last 12 months numbers are valid for a longer period of time than the last 12 months. I haven’t stated that I believe the lifetime prevalency for men is 1.1%. I haven’t stated that there is a parity between lifetime numbers. Yet you like to insist that I did rather than discuss the last 12 months numbers for what they are: the last 12 months numbers – nothing more.

    I have stated my opinion that they should be considered when talking about strategies for rape prevention work. In other words that rape prevention work should reflect that more recently more men than most would believe are sexually assaulted and raped (if one counts made to penetrate someone else as rape).

    I note that you and DSC seem to disagree with this. I personally think that is a dismissive
    attitude towards male victims and that it indicates a real reluctance to acknowledge them.

    The rate of rape, who the perpetrator is and the method which is used are functions of among other things cultural attitudes and beliefs (kyriarchy if you like). Cultural attitudes and beliefs changes over time (although not as quickly as I’d like). For instance spousal rape is much more recognized as a crime and not as a “right” than it was for for instance 40 years ago. I believe the rise in awareness about spousal rape have resulted in a lower rate of spousal rape now than there were 40 years ago.

    For all the hand-wringing about me not mentioning the lifetime numbers in my initial comment I wonder what I should make of the fact that just about no-one among the MSM and on feminists blogs and elsewhere mentioned the last 12 months numbers at all. Is it safe to assume that those glossed over the last 12 months numbers because the numbers don’t support their view (as I assume it to be)?

    You also said:

    even if the 50/50 numbers for 12 the past 12 mos were exactly as you described, which DSC has called into question

    This is basically accusing me of changing the numbers I’ve quoted from the NISVS 2010 Report. I can’t see I have done that at all so I have to ask:
    Don’t the NISVS 2010 give 1.1% prevalency for the last 12 months for rape for women and 1.1% prevalency for the last 12 months for men being made to penetrate someone else? I found them in the tables on page 18 and 19. Can you point to somewhere in the NISVS 2010 Report where those numbers for the last 12 months are different? I do know that the lifetime numbers are different – that why I qualified with “last 12 months”. ‘
    In contrast Darksidecat did not qualify the numbers s/he quoted in his first reply to me as lifetime numbers. S/he basically said, no 1.1% for both genders is wrong .- it is 11% for men and 44% for women. Reader’s could easily think that s/he was talking about “last 12 months” numbers since s/he was arguing against the numbers I qualified as “last 12 months” without qualifying hirs own numbers.

    The mean age of male respondents were around 40-50 year old. Let’s assume 45 for this exercise.
    A lifetime prevalence of 4.8% divided over 45 years give a prevalence of 0.1% per year.
    The NISVS 2010 reported that the rate for the most recent year is 1.1%. Assuming that both numbers are valid (assuming that CDC did their job) then this show that the historical trend of male victimization must fluctuate – since 0.1% =/= 1.1%. I can’t see any possible way to plot this over the last 40+ years without ending up with a significant spike for the last year. I can be convinced if anyone can come up it an example of a graph showing 4.8% lifetime prevalency over the last 40+ years with a value if 1.1% in the 2010 year which doesn’t have a significant spike in 2010.

    23% of all male victimization (of being made to penetrate someone else) measured over lifetime happened in the last year measured.

    If you have 40 cups in a row and 48 balls and you have to place 11 in the last cup and then distribute the rest (37) in the other 39 cups. Then regardless of how you distribute the rest the fact that a disproportional amount of balls are in the last cup. At best one could have 3 other cups with as many balls as the last one. Or one could have 1 or 2 cups with more balls as the last one. Avoiding a spike in the last cup is not possible. It will at least be the 3rd highest spike.

    Given that spike in 2010 I haven’t heard any well argued reasons for why one would expect that spike to go down in 2011, 2012 and so on. At least not until the spike is acknowledged and actions are taken to reduce this.

    Darksidecat: I haven’t made the claim that this study has proven gender parity in rape. There are many ways to measure rape. I said that the study found numerical parity between women reported being raped in the last 12 month and men being made to penetrate someone else in the last 12 months. What conclusions you drew from that is not my problem. Your extrapolation of my statement is on you. I note that you still haven’t stated what you make of the last 12 months prevalency numbers.

    If I want to guess what chances are for something happens the next second then what happened the last second would be a model to use. What happened the last 40 years divided by how many seconds there are in 40 years would be another model to use. The latter could be a “good” model is the incident rate didn’t fluctuate to much the last 40 years. The former model is also vulnerable to fluctuations, but if the graph is reasonably smooth (that is a not too high delta between every second) then it’s not as vulnerable as the latter. As an extreme example to show this let’s say that one want to guess how many people will get Poliomyetilis next year in the US. Given that the rate of Poliomyetilis had a sharp drop in the 1950s and in fact was considered eradicated in the Americas in 1994 then it becomes obvious that using the Poliomyetilis rate for last year to estimate the rate next year rather than using the lifetime prevalency numbers (as quite a few people who had Poliomyetilis before it got eradicated are still alive) is more likely to give a more correct result. If NISVS 2010 had provided more data – for instance a full timeserie of prevalency per year then that as CassandraSays could be basis for an even better model. Alas, we don’t have those numbers yet.

    You stated that older women have a lower risk of being raped than younger women and that means that more older women will be in the lifetime prevalency number who are not in the last 12 months prevalency numbers. But if those now have a lower risk of being raped, doesn’t that support my stance that the last 12 months prevalency numbers more accurately represents the rate of risk for being raped next year?

    When I point you to peer reviewed papers and studies showing that people don’t always report sexual abuse when surveyed/asked then it is dishonest by you to frame that as my claim only. I at least provided some support for an explanation for why self-report studies on sexual violence and abuse may result in underreporting. What do you think of the Mary Koss study which found that many women said no to the question: have you been raped while answering yes to the question have you been physically forced to have intercourse with someone when you didn’t want to do that? What do you make of the study which found that when people with a confirmed record of childhood sexual abuse (records of the case where the perpetrator were sentenced) did not relate any childhood sexual abuse when asked in a survey in young adulthood? Is your stance that that didn’t and can’t happen because noone “forgets they’ve been raped”.
    As I said earlier, forget can have many meanings and whether these are cases of real amnesia, repressed memories, neglecting to tell because of shame, fear, framing and so on is a matter for further research by those interested in that. But the effect is the same regardless – a risk of underreporting.

    I also pointed to a report from the designers of the NCVS survey where they stated:

    Prior research has determined that longer survey reference periods are associated with increases in memory lapses associated with both remembering the occurrence of events as well as accurately recalling the details of events including when they actually occurred.

    This is not my statement, this is a statement from the persons designing the NCVS survey you yourself cited in an earlier comment.

    Are your stance, Darksidecat, really that rape never is/can’t be underreported in self-report studies? Do anyone else than me disagree with that stance?

    I believe that how men and women in general are taught to consider rape certainly affects how they frame and how they report their own history.

    You and others have argued against me using the last 12 months prevalency numbers to estimate the prevalency for next year.
    So I’d like to ask you all. Given the results in the NISVS 2010 Report what would you guess the rate of men being made to penetrate someone else would be for the year 2012? Much higher, higher, the same, lower, much lower than the 1.1% the NISVS 2010 Report gave for the last 12 months in 2010? Or will they be more in line with the average of the lifetime prevalency rate (4.8% / ~45 = ca. 0.1%)?

    CassandraSays: I have not said that the lifetime numbers are useless, worthless and not important. They are the best number we got on how many rape survivors there are and should be used as a guide to where to put in effort to support rape victims. However, if there is a low ratio between lifetime figures and last 12 months figures then I think the last 12 month number is a better indicator for the next 12 months number than the lifetime number divided by years (mean or median age respondents).

    Do you all think that one should just ignore the last 12 months numbers for male victimization – that those numbers are of no use? Or don’t you believe them? Why? I am trying to understand why the vitrol lobbied against me here when I stated the last 12 months numbers without mentioning the lifetime numbers (much like Feministing, TGMP, Main Street Media, NSWATM, the Executive Summary of the report itself, Hugo Schwyzer, DSC (in his first reply to me) and so on only stated the lifetime numbers without mentioning the last 12 months numbers). Feministing for instance in their post on the NISVS 2010 mentioned only lifetime numbers for men, but both lifetime numbers and last 12 months numbers for women. Was I wrong to compare rape and “being made to penetrate” because you take Hugo Schwyzer stance that “being made to penetrate someone else” is not rape?

  22. Do you all think that one should just ignore the last 12 months numbers for male victimization – that those numbers are of no use? Or don’t you believe them? Why? I am trying to understand why the vitrol lobbied against me here when I stated the last 12 months numbers without mentioning the lifetime numbers (much like Feministing, TGMP, Main Street Media, NSWATM, the Executive Summary of the report itself, Hugo Schwyzer, DSC (in his first reply to me) and so on only stated the lifetime numbers without mentioning the last 12 months numbers). Feministing for instance in their post on the NISVS 2010 mentioned only lifetime numbers for men, but both lifetime numbers and last 12 months numbers for women. Was I wrong to compare rape and “being made to penetrate” because you take Hugo Schwyzer stance that “being made to penetrate someone else” is not rape?

    Because, as DSC pointed out, you were cherry picking data, and using it to imply a fundamental equality in victimisation.

    Do I believe the numbers? It doesn’t matter, when what’s being discussed is your use of the figures. If you want to say this is a persistent truth, then you need data more than one year.

    If you are making a point about only one year, then you need to phrase it differently.

  23. Pecunium:

    So what else than

    Of the 1.270.000 women raped the last 12 months(2010) ( including attempts) 98% reported male perpetrators.
    Of the 1.267.000 men “made to penetrate” the last 12 months(2010) (including attempts) 79% reported female perpetrators. (NISVS 2010 Report from CDC p.17-19 and 24).+

    should I have written to show that this was only a data point for one year. Should I add:
    “And I really really (yes really!) mean ‘the last 12 months’ “.

    I note that the meaning of the last 12 months prevalence numbers for male victims doesn’t matter to you outside the context of proving me wrong. If the meaning is of no importance to you then why is it so imperative for you to prove me wrong? You said I was wrong and explained why I thought I am not wrong and I asked what you think is right. Not even bothering to state your stance on them makes it seem like you’re in the discussion solely for the point scoring for your debate team.

    I want to raise awareness about male rape/sexual violence victims to reduce the risk for others to experience what I did. Highlighting a particular finding pertaining male victims which was unanticipated for many is one way. A way which may actually cause some men to think “It is not right to do that to me” and some women to think “Perhaps I’d better check in first before I wake my hubby up with a blow-job, “Perhaps I shouldn’t nag him into having sex with me when he says he’d rather sleep” and so on. Discussing with others what that number entails tend to follow any comment citing the last 12 months prevalency numbers for men and women. Discussing with people who’s only mission is to prove me wrong and who says the subject matter at hand doesn’t matter enough for them to offer an opinion is not constructive for me in that regard.

  24. tamen: You shouldn’t have tried to then say that it was, “the truth about rape that feminists don’t want to admit.”

    What is your point. That a study shows that men are coerced into sex? No one here disputes it.

    That such coercion is rape? No one here disputes it.

    That such rape is traumatic? No one here disputes it.

    That such rapes are actually equal in number to rapes of women… insufficient data. Even if true for one year, it’s only one year. How about the lifetime chances for women to be raped vs. men to be raped?

    I think that’s a more important stat, and one that study doesn’t address, and which you dismissed; even from the data in that study.

    What was your point in that limitation?

    Because we didn’t say the subject matter is unimportant, we dispute that your conclusions are supported by the evidence/that you used it correctly.

  25. Pecunium: Can you point to me the comment where I said:

    The truth about rape that feminists don’t want to admit.

    Because I am pretty sure I never said that and you putting that in quotation marks and attributing that to me means that you can back up that I said exactly that, right?

    I did say that the last 12 months numbers were closer in parity than many women like to consider.

    For most women the idea of them being a perpetrator of rape is pretty foreign (given that most people believe that the vast majority if perpetrators of sexual violence against men is other men) and I suspect that women are similar enough to men that some when reading that over a million men were “being made to penetrate someone else” by women (79.2% of 1.267.000) find it uncomfortable and may even react with defensiveness, just like some men do when there is talk about the prevalency of female rape victims.

    You implies that I’ve asserted:

    That such rapes are actually equal in number to rapes of women

    That is unqualified statement. I qualified my statement. If we look at 2010 isolated – then, yes, according to CDC such rapes in 2010 indeed are almost equal in number to rapes of women in 2010.
    If one look at lifetime figures then according to CDC such rapes are slightly over 25% of the rapes of women during their lifetimes (18.3 / 4.8 = 3.8). None of this is disputed by me.

    You said “even if it’s truefor one year”. Does that qualifier signify that you doubt the 12 months prevalency figures in the NISVS 2010 Report? If so, can you explain why you doubt them – are there some weaknesses in the methodology NISVS 2010 used which could explain an overreporting for men in the last 12 months (and not for women and lifetime numbers)? If you don’t question those number specifically then why that qualifier?

    I haven’t disputed or dismissed the lifetime prevalency numbers, I haven’t tried to pass of the last 12 months numbers as lifetime numbers. I have stated in clear text that I think the lifetime prevalency are the best numbers for how many rape survivors there are in the population and that those numbers are for instance important to guide how and where to put in resources to support and help for rape survivors.

    What I have said is that I think the “last 12 months” numbers are a better (albeit far far from perfect) predictor of the prevalency numbers for next year than lifetime figures (divided by # of years) are. I don’t know when the next NISVS survey will be released, but I believe that the prevalency numbers for men for the last 12 months section then will be close to the 2010 numbers unless we as a society do more to address the cultural attitudes that exists around rape and sexual violence against men. Future NISVS surveys will of course make available more datapoints which will increase the precision of any estimates about future victimization rates. That is one of the stated goals of that survey. I also chose to mention the last 12 month data as they are excluded from most of the discussion about the NISVS 2010 – I’d be very glad if you could point me to anywhere where the last 12 months prevalency figures for men are mentioned and discussed. The picture they (last 12 months) paint for the year 2010 is very different from the picture the lifetime figures implies (lifetime numbers divided by years). Only looking at the lifetime figures obscures the finding that in 2010 a lot (1.1%) of men were made to penetrate someone else and that 79.2% were made to do so by women. I find it hazardous towards future male victims to just not act upon the “last 12 months” figures because one assumes it’s just a blip, an anomaly. Only citing the lifetime prevalency numbers and (as CDC and many reporting on the survey did) defining the “made to penetrate someone else” as not rape will help maintain the low awareness of male victims in society at large as well as in rape prevention programs (which are mainly focused on male on female rape). The belief that the perpetrators of sexual violence against men are almost exclusively other men is false (it’s not even true in prisons) as the NISVS 2010 reports. The majority of sexual violence victims reported female perpetrator. That means that women need to be target of attitude campaigns about consent to a larger degree than now if one want to reduce the number of male victims. I even think that an increased focus on male victimization can have a positive impact one female victimization rates as I think that on an aggregated level people who are taught that they have the same right as others are more likely to extend that right to others as well.

    It seems you disagree about whether the last 12 months figures can be used in any way as basis for an estimate for the next 12 months. We’ve both presented our arguments and I’ll just assume that any readers can make up their own minds based on our respective arguments.

    I am glad you clarified that you don’t believe that the subject matter is unimportant. I think it is important. You did state that it doesn’t matter what you think of them when you discussed with me and you still haven’t offered your opinion on them.

    Do I believe the numbers? It doesn’t matter, when what’s being discussed is your use of the figures.

    In what context other than discussing with me does your beliefs about the 12 months prevalency numbers matter for you?

  26. “Was I wrong to compare rape and “being made to penetrate” because you take Hugo Schwyzer stance that “being made to penetrate someone else” is not rape?”

    Troll! Since it’s already been stated by many people here that they don’t believe that.

    Tamen – do you have an actual point to make? If so please make it, because the walls of text and disengenous arguments are growing tiresome.

  27. Tamen… I was summing up. If I am quoting directly, I use italics, Now, show me (since you are being so high and mighty, where I said, I agreed with the idea that, “being made to penetrate someone else is not rape.

    Let me help you… this is what I said in the last post I made.

    What is your point. That a study shows that men are coerced into sex? No one here disputes it.

    That such coercion is rape? No one here disputes it.

    That such rape is traumatic? No one here disputes it.

    That such rapes are actually equal in number to rapes of women… insufficient data. Even if true for one year, it’s only one year. How about the lifetime chances for women to be raped vs. men to be raped?

    That’s where I said that being coerced into sex (and sex is more than just PIV) is rape. Full stop.

    But you, who have just said I hold a position diametrically opposed to the one I plainly stated, are taking offense at my paraphrasing your position.

    So when you say my take saying that you are accusing feminists of being unwilling to “accept the truth about rape”, how much different is that, in fact, from, “I did say that the last 12 months numbers were closer in parity than many women like to consider. .

    Esp. since we are accepting, in general, the 12 month figure. What we aren’t doing is saying your larger claim, that this is somehow more important than lifetime stats, is as important as you think it is.

    These may seem to unimportant distinctions to you, but they are the crux of the debate,

    Again, the past 12 months are just that. The past 12 months. If you are trying (as you seem to be) to assert a radical change it needs to have more than a single source.

    If you are trying to say that “women” (which is sort of like saying, “men”… and really are you trying to argue that men are up in arms about coerced sex of men being rape?), don’t accept this fact, and need to wake up… well you are wrong. You are so wrong that when women (and other feminists; though doesn’t mean I think all women are feminists, just that your choice of venue is aimed at “feminists” more than, “women”) tell you they think coerced sex, no matter the gender of the person doing the coercion is rape you pretend they didn’t say it.

    And that makes me question your agenda.

  28. CassandraSays: Ok.
    We disagree on to what extent one can make assumptions about the prevalency next year based on last year (you said one can’t I say one can to some extent).

    Aside from that disagreement can we all agree on that the last 12 months figures from NISVS 2010 show near gender parity for rape victimization for the last 12 months? That year isolated?

  29. When did Pecunium and I become the same person?

    Again – what is the point that you are trying to make? What is your goal here? Because from where I’m sitting your behavior in this thread seems most peculiar.

  30. Tamen: What are you trying to get people to agree with? Because you seem very invested in getting some sort of agreement, and about a very specific thing.

    Why?

  31. Pecunium: I just want to say that I cross-posted. You now have stated that you (plural since you said we) acknowledge that the last 12 months numbers from NISVS 2010 show a near gender parity for rape victimization the last 12 months (2010). You go on to say that a (in your words radical) change in rape preventions needs to be based on more than a single datapoint. That is an argument which I at least can understand. Although I find it sad that more focus on male victims and women’s responsibility to ensure consent from their partners is considered radical.

    Purely hypothetical, if subsequent NISVS Reports continue to find a 1.1% victimization rate among both men and women would you then support such change?

    Do you think such a change would hurt female victims and/or increase rape risk for women? Do you think that such a change would not help male victims or decrease rape risk for men (whatever you think that risk is now)? Is rape prevention a zero-sum game? I don’t believe so.

    DSC’s argument to me when I mentioned the findings for the last 12 months (and again, I did qualify that the numbers were for the last 12 months) was that I was incapable of reading a report. S/he also stated that rape couldn’t be underreported because no-one forgot their rape. Would you agree with that?

    I must point out that the comment where I said:

    Was I wrong to compare rape and “being made to penetrate” because you take Hugo Schwyzer stance that “being made to penetrate someone else” is not rape?

    preceded the comment where you stated that you consider them both to be rape so accusing me of asking that question after you have said so is wrong. I will stand corrected if you can point me to comments in our exchange preceeding my question by Darksidecat, CassandraSay and you where it is unambiguously stated that being made to penetrate someone else is rape.
    That being said, I see that that sentence was poorly worded by me. It was meant as a question and the second part was not intended to be a presumption of your stance. I should’ve just written: “Was I wrong to compare rape and ‘being made to penetrate someone else?'”. I clumsily included Schwyzer to show why I felt the need to ask this question since there exist organizations (CDC), people and feminists who do think that “being made to penetrate someone else” is not rape. I was hoping for a simple “No” as an answer to that question.

    If it is a problem that 1.1% of women were raped the last 12 months (I certainly think so) then it surely is a problem that 1.1% of men were made to penetrate someone else the last 12 months.1.1% of men in 2010 were “enough up in arms” about them being made to penetrate someone else that they reported it when asked in survey.

    First, thank you for asking me to clarify what I am arguing rather than to directly attack what you think I am arguing. I don’t know why so many women failed to obtain consent from their partners in 2010. I do know that the woman who raped me didn’t bother to wake me up, much less ask me, before she started to have intercourse with me. She simply wanted sex and assumed that I wanted sex (despite us agreeing not to have sex before we went to sleep) since I had made out with her earlier that night and since I got an erection (whether I had an erection by myself in my sleep or I got an erection because she fondled me in some way I don’t know). Had she been more aware that assuming that men want always want sex is wrong and that the consequence could be that she actually could end up raping someone then she probably wouldn’t have raped me.

    I find it very troublesome when Hugo Schwyzer tells that when he have women coming to him and asking whether they raped their partners when it occurs to them (after the fact) that they didn’t actually obtain consent before the sex act he goes on to tell them that although it was a bad thing to do it wasn’t rape. How much better wouldn’t it be if the thought that it could be raped could occur before they acted.
    I troubled as a victim of a female rapist when people state that “Only men can stop rape” (Emily L. Hauser, Soraya Chemaly). I am troubled by the fact that both men and women considers what female victims wore is relevant to them being raped. I am troubled when Soraya Chemaly said there is a qualitative difference between male on female rape and female on male rape. I am troubled about the attitudes which surfaced when a woman was convicted of rape for giving a sleeping man a blow-job some years back. I am troubled when people compromise men’s ability to not consent by stating that men who won’t do certain sex acts are misogynists. I am troubled by the fact that CDC didn’t considers being made to penetrate someone else as rape. I am troubled that there still are shortcomings despite all the work put into changing it in the new FBI definition of rape.

    When these attitudes even is present among people who purportedly should know better I assume that they are even more common among people at large.

    Both men and women have misconceptions about male sexuality, however given that 79.2% of the men reporting being made to penetrate someone else reported a female perpetrator I don’t find it unreasonable to also direct awareness efforts towards women.

  32. What change?

    Here is (and has been) my position on rape prevention: Teach people that no-consent = rape.

    Investigate claims of rape.

    Prosecute claims which prove valid.

    None of which makes any difference who is being raped.

    That’s been my public position for more than twenty years. What do you want me to change?

  33. Sorry, I realise there is an unclarity.

    None of which makes any difference based on who is being raped, i.e. it’s a gender neutral policy.

  34. Tamen wants to prove that male rape is more important and should be prioritized over female rape.

    In spite of the fact that feminists already educate about female on male rape frequently. True fact, I learned about women raping men on feminist websites.

  35. Bostonian: I don’t think that is quite it, but Tamen hasn’t said what he wants. He’s not even good at saying what we’ve said, as evidenced by his asking us to subscribe to something we’ve been saying from the get go.

  36. CassandraSay: Sorry, I got your comment where you say I can’t with the current data describe a rising trend mixed up with Pecunia’s statement that the last 12 months prevalency number can’t be used to make any extrapolation about the next 12 months.
    I am however still curious as to whether there exist any possible charts that can be generated from the lifetime numbers and the last 12 months (4.8 to be distributed over the whole graph with 1.1 of them in the last period)?

    CassandraSay and Pecunia:
    As a male victim I’ve experienced dismissal and the commonality in that dismissal is always the belief that rape is almost exclusively a male on female crime. When findings start to suggest that it is far from as exclusively a male on female crime as previously though I can’t find any discussion anywhere about how this should influence rape prevention work. In fact, the finding is either completely ignored or defined away (as CDC and Schwyzer did). I also believe fervently that rape prevention work is an important factor in reducing all rape. A change in rape prevalence should henceforth be reflected with a change in how one work to prevent rape.

    A commenter called pillowinhell stated that she had seen numbers showing parity between male and female rapists. Darksidecat challenges pillowinhell on that and pillowinhell didn’t cite the study where s/he found it.

    I cited the NISVS 2010 study which actually showed that while not a parity a quite large proportion of the rapists who committed rape in 2010 were female. I was then attacked by Darksidecat and accused of not being able to read a report. (I had only copied and pasted one finding and stating that I thought this finding would be surprisingly for many).

  37. So, all the comments that you’re disagreeing with are from one specific commenter, and you’ve decided to generalise that to the entire commentariat?

    I’d also love to hear your explanation for why you made the statement that I quoted upthread. When you make statements to the effect of “so what you’re all saying is…”, and that’s not in fact what most people had been saying, one is inclined to think that you may not be engaging in good faith.

  38. Now, putting aside my sense that Tamen is not arguing in good faith, if one was in the position he describes, and had the concerns he describes, what would be the smartest and most effective way to approach that? I have to say, “post comments on a blog that mocks misogyny” doesn’t strike me as a particularly effective form of activism.

  39. Tamen: I’m sorry you’ve been dismissed, but that doesn’t entitle you to assume that anyone who disagrees with your data disagrees with your premise.

    It certainly doesn’t entitle you to take an exchange (which had one person presenting no real evidence), and the outcome thereto (i.e. no evidence in support of the claim) as somehow meaning everyone here finds the underlying issue (rape) to be as you have found it elsewhere.

    It most assuredly doesn’t justify you telling people they believe things which, in the very comment you were responding to, they had said quite the opposite.

    Again, what is it you want?

  40. “From one year I can’t even pretend to extrapolate the likelihood of being raped in my lifetime. All I can do is say, “In this year, this happened”. But that’s, to all intents and purposes, a single datum point. It’s not a valid basis for the extrapolation you are making.”

    “You are the one claiming that this study has proven gender parity in rape, and it has not done so in any way, shape or form.”

    “Do I believe the numbers? It doesn’t matter, when what’s being discussed is your use of the figures. If you want to say this is a persistent truth, then you need data more than one year.”

    “That such rapes are actually equal in number to rapes of women… insufficient data. Even if true for one year, it’s only one year. How about the lifetime chances for women to be raped vs. men to be raped?”

    “Again, the past 12 months are just that. The past 12 months. If you are trying (as you seem to be) to assert a radical change it needs to have more than a single source.”

    Really? Really? Wow. If you think that is data from the whole of last year is;

    1 – Insufficient time to calculate a rate (“need data more than one year” “single datum point” “it’s only one year”

    2 – Less relevant to current rates of rape than the rate further in the past (All of it about lifetimes rates – every time it’s mentioned pretty much)

    then I’m really not sure what to say to you. The CDC study is some pretty darn good data (though I’d like to see some reviews of the paper in the peer reviewed literature).

    Some questions:

    1: Do you think that attitudes to rape today are the same as 50 years in the past?
    2: Do you think that people are more aware of consent issues now than 50 years in the past?
    3: Do you think that ideas about the vulnerability of men to rape have changed in the last 50 years?
    4: Do you think that crime rates have changed in the last 50 years?
    5: Do you think that there is a generational difference in attitudes to rape (in general, everyone is an individual of course)?
    6: If you answered any of the above questions with a ‘yes’ then why do you think the lifetime rate is a better measure of current rates than the rate from last year?

  41. JoanofArt:

    How many people were shot in my neighborhood last year?

    From that what is the persistent rate of homicide where I live?

    From that how many people will be shot next year?

    A year is a year. It is, in this context, a single quantum of information.

    I’ve not said the data isn’t good data. I’ve said the uses to which Tamen seems to be putting them aren’t something the data support.

    Question: Do you think the relative rates of rape for men and women are now, and will be in the future roughly equal?

    If so why?

  42. To expand: Tamen seems to be arguing that this compilation means that males being raped is at parity with females being raped, and that somehow the paradigm of rape prevention, into the future, needs to be changed because of it.

    His study is not a trendline. The longitudinal data aren’t there. That’s why the longer period is more relevant.

    Moreover, what he wants is what I already support, so the details in this study are completely irrelevant to his actual desires. He could have asked, ab initio, “what do you think ought to be done to decrease the number of rapes?” and gotten the information he said he wants.

    If, however, what he wants is to have a shift in focus from preventing rape, in general, to one of preventing male rape, in specific, he’s got a problems, because that’s not something I’m going to support, and it’s not something a single year’s data will justify.

  43. I think your questions help to emphaises my point – the rate of homicide in your area is, next year, more likely to be like last year than the year 1700. Do you agree? I similary think that the relative rate of rape of men and women is much more likely to be like last year than an average of the last 50 years, as the conditions now are more similar to last year than the average conditions over the last 50 years.

  44. So when we’re discussing lifetime prevalance we need to include statistics from the year 1700? I was not aware that this conversation involved surveying vampires about whether or not they’d been raped.

  45. Murdered actually – that was about homicide. :p

  46. In that case the rate is 100%. Or would be, if it was possible to access stats from that era, or if any of this was remotely relevant to the conversation at hand.

  47. The conversation at hand is is more recent data more indicative of future data than older data – its right on topic.

  48. Actually the conversation is now about why you feel that absurd hyperbole improves your argument.

  49. Sure! It exaggerates the issue to demonstrate the point – conditions next year are more likely to be like last year than an average of the last 50 or so years – it just makes that point more clear.

  50. Nah, it mostly just makes you look kind of silly.

  51. I don’t mind looking silly. :)

  52. BTW I still want to know what Tamen wants out of this conversation, exactly. He’s been asked multiple times now, so it’s odd that he still hasn’t answered.

  53. Ah… so that last year had an gang war is therefore indicative of what?

    Because it did, and the number of murders within three blocks of my house was 1: higher than the year before (though the number of murders within 100 feet was fewer), and I expect the rate to be less this year than last.

    The rate of homicide in the year before was lower than the year before that.

    The three years before those were much the as the year above, and the year before that was higher than last year, but lower than the year prior.

    And in none of those years could one, rationally (my expectation that the gang war is over, and the rate of homicide likely to return to rates of the recent past is guess. It’s possible that outside circumstance will keep the rate of homicide about what it was. It certainly seems the rate of gun violence is about the same, but it also seems to be driven by poverty, not interfactional feuding).

    Which is why one year isn’t adequate to extrapolate that sort of thing. Esp. if the year seems to be anomalous. If the study showed that reported rapes had been in rough parity for the past five years, that would be more indicative (as was the trending to a newly stable lower rate of homicide in E. Palo Alto was), but even that’s not dispostive, merely indicative.

    tamen wants us to treat it as both indicative, and dispositve; from an artificially small (as he admits, he chose the data from the past year, because it was the data that made his argument seem strongest).

    And… none of that matters to what he said his overall aim was… to get people to agree with his ideas on how to deal with rape prevention, because we already do agree with his definition of rape, and we want to stop it.

  54. JoanofArt: Sure! It exaggerates the issue to demonstrate the point – conditions next year are more likely to be like last year than an average of the last 50 or so years – it just makes that point more clear.

    No, it doesn’t, because that’s a fallacy.

    Conditions from year to year are likely to be consistent, for most things (but see above, re homicides in my neighborhood). But that’s not the issue. The issue is: “Is the data from one year enough to make a substantive change to policy.”.

    Look at climate change. This year is likely to be much the same as last year. Next year as well. But small changes, from year to year, can add up. And if I take just one year, one in which the swing was to the lower end of the temperature range, and used that as by baseline… declared a trend from it, I’d be screwed.

    That’s why one needs to have longitudinal studies. Just as the users of Vioxx.

  55. So let me get this straight – are you proposing that a nationwide rape epidemic of men occurred last year? Or that there was just a huge and unprecedented reduction in the number of women raped? Or perhaps both? I find that somewhat unlikely, and your proposition that last year was anomalous – if just one month was anomalous or just one region of the USA was anomalous then the date would still average out – requires this, Do have a reason to believe last year was particularly anomalous? Notably you do for the homicides – a gang war. The fact that this is a nation wide survey rather than within 3 blocks of your house makes quite a significant difference.

    I have no idea what tamen wants, I’m curious about why the statistics from last year are being so strongly contested as representative with no reason given for why people think last year was so anomalous.

  56. And.. who said average? I didn’t. I said trendline. If the rate of X is increasing the “average” can be quite different from any given year’s numbers. If I work to deal with the “average” (a meaningless concept in trying to deal with attitudes toward rape, in any case), I can (almost certainly will) mis-allocate my resources, because an average is an artificial tool used to model.

    No one, for example, has 2.14 children, even if that is the national average. If I take last years average, fail to account for a steady decrease in family size, then I will build too many schools, train to many pediatricians (and Ob/Gyns), have too many neo-natal beds, etc. and the find I have problems later.

  57. When you are using the lifetime rates it is an average – it is not a trendline – both the lifetime rate and the last year rate from the CDC are single data points in that regard. As for climate change – they regularly use data from the last year to examine (close friends with climate scientists, some of whom have worked for the Climatic Research Unit, so I’ve talked a lot about this) and look at future years – they just continue to get data – years which are anomalous are explained – what the North Atlantic oscillation unusual that year? Climate scientists do not just claim a year is unrepresentative without a good reason.

  58. JoanofArt: Because they are. Unless you have a batch of studies showing that men and women have been being raped at equivalent numbers, for a period of years.

    The problem isn’t that we don’t believe the data, it’s what we are being asked to believe about the data.

    It’s also the fact that, even if true, the data don’t change our attitudes toward rape (it’s wrong), the definition of rape (sex obtained without honest consent), or what we want to do about it (teach people to not fuck until they have honest consent).

    So the question isn’t about us. It’s about why “accepting” this data is so important. First to Tamen, now to you.

  59. Because you seem to have no logical reason to? I am a big fan of reason. What exactly have I asked you to believe beyond either believing it is representative or coming up with a evidenced explanation of why the year was anomalous?

  60. I don’t know what to say (to quote you) to your saying I have no logical reason to. It sounds as if what you are actually saying is you can’t understand why I don’t accept your reasons. Which is true. I don’t, and I explained why.

    You also used a string of questions designed to force an answer (“6: If you answered any of the above questions with a ‘yes’ then why do you think the lifetime rate is a better measure of current rates than the rate from last year?), when those questions were not all related to the issue at hand. Since one of those questions required a “yes” (do I think crime rates have changed in the past 50 years), I have to doubt either your reasoning, or your honesty in debate. To be kind I have gone with the former. It does, however, put you at a disadvantage.

    Argument by analogy is difficult when the analogies include gross errors in logic, they aren’t going to be convincing. When one error compounded (when Cassandra mentioned this you defended it as a reasonable way to show your point: even though there is no way to measure one of the data points [homicides in the are of E. Palo Alto in 1700]. As to rate.. I suspect it was higher then, given the relatively smaller population in 1700, but I can’t know), the subsequent arguments suffer.

    You are asking me to take one year (which you admit isn’t the method in other sciences), and use it as a baseline. I am supposed to ignore that it’s anomalous. That I don’t you seem to think unreasonable.

    And yes, the lifetime rates are an average. I didn’t say that no average is ever useful. But when looking at setting policy (what tamen was asking), using a larger data set is useful. From the data in which the lifetime chance was computed one can extract the baselines. With some regressions one can get better granularity on locale, and cause.

    None of that can be done with one year’s data set. And you seem to think, in this case, it ought to be.

    What exactly have I asked you to believe beyond either believing it is representative or coming up with a evidenced explanation of why the year was anomalous?

    What I am asking is that you defend your positive claim (that it is reasonable to assume this year isn’t anomalous). It’s a basic principle of logic. The person who makes the claim has to defend it. Tamen was making that claim, and now you are.

  61. *blink* you have a positive claim, not I – you say the year was anomalous – that is a positive claim, I just take the data as they are – the null hypothesis should be that the year is representative.

    If you believe that the questions were not relevant tell me *why* they aren’t – I’ll explain why I think they are.

    1: Do you think that attitudes to rape today are the same as 50 years in the past?

    If it is different then people will have been raised with different attitudes and recognise different things as rape, changing reported rape rates.

    2: Do you think that people are more aware of consent issues now than 50 years in the past?

    If people are are more aware of consent issues they are more likely to label non-consensual contact as assault or rape, whilst people who have already labelled events in the past are unlikely to re-evaluate them.

    3: Do you think that ideas about the vulnerability of men to rape have changed in the last 50 years?

    Men who had non-consensual contact further in the past may not have recognised it as rape.

    4: Do you think that crime rates have changed in the last 50 years?

    If crime rates have changed significantly then it is poor practice to use a 50 year average to look at current rates.

    5: Do you think that there is a generational difference in attitudes to rape (in general, everyone is an individual of course)?

    If there is a generational difference then again events further in the past are less likely to be labelled as rape

    Finally even if you answered yes I did not say you must accept the null hypothesis, just that you tell me “why do you think the lifetime rate is a better measure of current rates than the rate from last year?”

    “But when looking at setting policy (what tamen was asking), using a larger data set is useful.”

    Not always – and that is what the 1700 example is meant to show – larger data sets are not always better! More relevant data is better data.

    “which you admit isn’t the method in other sciences”
    Which I specifically mention is used by other sciences – again unless there is an good explanation for it being anomalous there is no good reason to suggest it is.

    ” And you seem to think, in this case, it ought to be.”
    What? I’ve not mentioned policy at all.

  62. I see, your list of question is worse than it appeared. There were unstated assumptions, and those assumptions aren’t actually the only reasons for the answers. Since the questions weren’t actually honest questions (you had a set of, “right answers”. What if I said no to all of them? What if the rates of crime are different because the crimes which can be committed have changed in number/severity? What if there are fewer/more people, and so the relative value of one crime in the overall picture is different? The explanations you give aren’t the only viable reasons, so you have to defend all of them… have fun).

    Now… you have said the null set is that this year isn’t anomalous. Because?

    You have other years to compare it to? You have some baseline to which you can say it’s consistent? I say it’s anomalous because I’ve seen no other data set which shows that ratio. So, in the realm of available data, it’s atypical.

    Which, as I keep repeating, has nothing to do with the underlying issues.

    So, again, why is it so important to you that I/we accept this single year of data as being the norm?

  63. I repeat – because you have no logical reason to. Seriously!

    “What if I said no to all of them?”
    Then you would be in a much better position to claim the year was anomalous?

    “What if the rates of crime are different because the crimes which can be committed have changed in number/severity?”

    Then it would be bad practice to use the longer term data?

    “What if there are fewer/more people, and so the relative value of one crime in the overall picture is different? ”

    You know about percentages, right?

    “Now… you have said the null set is that this year isn’t anomalous. Because?”
    You have said it is…because?
    I have provided reasons (see my answers to the questions) – you have provided none.

    And of course I have no need to defend all of them – any one of them would be a good reason to suggest that the longer term data is less representative than the short term data. I note that you’re still trying to dodge the burden of proof – none-the-less I will defend my positions on the answers,

    Defending them:

    1:SEX-ROLE ATTITUDE CHANGE AND REPORTING OF RAPE VICTIMIZATION, 1973–1985
    James D. Orcutt1, Rebecca Faison
    The Sociological Quarterly
    Volume 29, Issue 4, pages 589–604, December 1988

    2:Contest and consent: A legal history of marital rape
    JE Hasday – California Law Review, 2000 – JSTOR

    3:Gender role conflict, homophobia, age, and education as predictors of male rape myth acceptance
    LR Kassing, D Beesley… – Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 2005 – AMHCA

    4: http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/frequency-of-sexual-assault
    (from U.S. Department of Justice. National Crime Victimization Survey. 2006-2010.)

    5:Also covered in 3.

  64. What percentage of the people studied were in the 18-21 range or younger? The vast majority of rapes occur before the victim is 25. Rape rates vary extremely based on age. So, a study that has an average subject age of 40-50 has older groups overrepresented vs. younger groups. It is likely that the younger subjects made up almost all of the rape victims in the study. The lifetime numbers bolster this, as older subjects seem to be reporting that rapes occured when they were at the younger ages as well.

    Also, you are bouncing back and forth on the issue of forgetting about being raped. You cited a claim about “amnesia” regarding having been the victim of child rape, so quit fucking lying and saying you weren’t claiming people habitually forget their rapes when you named it first among issues of underreporting. Also, looking at just the past year would erase almost all child rape from the study, because the subjects were adults. There’s no reason to presume that those who had been victims in their youth are underreporting more for the lifetime rates vs. those who have been victimized more recently reporting in recent rates. If anything, we should expect that the initial trauma of dealing with the rape might increase underreporting of recent rapes. Underreporting is an issue in all self report studies, but you have failed to make even the slightest glimmer of a coherent argument as to why the lifetime figures should be presumed to have far more discrepancy between genders in underreporting than the recent figures.

  65. The burden of proof was on Tamen, who said, Look at this data which proves what women want to deny.

    That was the claim. That was him claiming this single year proves something.

    You are also saying it does.

    That’s a positive claim. The burden of proof isn’t on us.

    And if I said no to all of them… when some of them aren’t subjective (the overall rate of crime is down… simple fact, the abstracts of incidence per 100,000 make it plain). To answer no to that is deny reality.

    But you attached a subjective value to a response about an objective one.

    The problem here is that Tamen (whom you are defending) is taking the question of one year’s data, and demanding a policy change. Policy changes are not well handled by single sets of data.

    Because single years can be anomalous, and it’s why I said the truth of the single year’s data isn’t relevant to my positions. Because this is a policy issue. It’s not, for all that he, and you, persist in trying to make it, a question of the reliability of data.

    It’s a question of what to do with the data. For the purpose he’s arguing (making changes to rape prevention policy), a single year (just as with climate change) isn’t relevant. If there was a sudden dearth in rapes of women, it would be terrible practice to say all rape prevention will be focused on making sure women don’t get raped.

    It’s not denying the evidence, it’s saying the evidence isn’t useful to what he wants done.

    This is what he said: I’ll restate my reason here: When it comes to the risk of being raped now the “last 12 months” figures gives a more accurate picture than the lifetime figures.

    There isn’t any way to prove that. It implies that the most recent year is the baseline, and that the baseline will persist.

    Since he said that knowing this will, he believes, reduce males being raped, he’s making a prediction that this ratio, is going to be persistent.

    The secondary question of who is at risk come into play, since not all women are at the same level of risk, nor all men, Again, what he said he wanted (a rape prevention policy that dealt with preventing male rape) is already what feminism is after… the question of the reports policy function is, to the purpose of this discussion, still not relevant.

    And I think that’s where the problem lies. You seem to think I’m dimissing the report, out of hand. I’m not. I’m looking at what Tamen is saying the report ought to be used for, and saying this is a bad use of the data.

  66. I disagree about the burden of proof in this situation for this reason – to claim a year is anomolus there requires something that is making it anamolous – with a sample this size its not really feasabile to claim a sampling problem (though again I’d like to see some peer review on it, which I still haven’t done.). This means that if someone says that a year is anomalous they are claiming there exists additional data – the reasons why the year is anomalous. Claiming that it is not anamolous requires no additional data – do you see why this should be the null hypothesis?

    I don’t think any of the answers are subjective, and I believe they make a strong case that the long term data may well be of little value at calulating future rates.

    I, honestly, don’t care what you do with the data. Really. Neither you or I are going to be setting policies anyway – and the people that do are paid to look at this shit – I hope they’re well qualified that’s all! :)

    “When it comes to the risk of being raped now the “last 12 months” figures gives a more accurate picture than the lifetime figures.”

    Prove it? Not with the current data, no. Strong reasons within known theoritical frameworks using other data can lend us reason to believe that the short term data may well be more likely to be representative of future data than the long term data. Does that mean it definatly will? Of course not – its just an educated prediction. Just because I have no reason to believe that this year wasn’t anomolous doesn’t mean it actually wasn’t – I am making no truth claims, just claiming that the data we have at the momement supports the model I put foward better than any proposed alternative I’ve seen.

    Sure – I’m not going to state what policy decisions should be made from this data – it’s really not my job or area of expertise. I’ll also apologise, I’ve been coming across a bit too aggressively, I’m not normally like that -.-;

  67. Joan, you’re stupid and not capable of reading. The claim isn’t that the year is an anomaly; it’s that there’s no reason to think the year is part of a trend. According to your idiotic reasoning, the burden of proof is always going to be wherever someone says it is; claims of a long term trend were made, there’s no evidence of a long term trend offered. Fuck off or get some motherfucking reading comprehension.

    Also, I just read the actual reddit thread in the OP. So now I know why I don’t go to Reddit.

  68. Ok. Wall of texts should be forbidden here.

  69. Stupid perhaps, but I think I can read! (though I do have some developmental issues with reading and writing, but I think I can manage thanks very much)

    “The claim isn’t that the year is an anomaly; it’s that there’s no reason to think the year is part of a trend”

    Well, yes the claim is exactly that – by saying it’s not part of a trend (as many here have) it’s a claim that it is anomalous, and no evidence is presented to support that. Perhaps you could learn to read as well? Of course evidence was presented to show that the life time rates from the study are less appropriate to use when predicting future rates than the last year rates – which is what I’ve been focusing on, you know if you could read.

    Of course we have no reason to think that it’s not part of a trend – why do you think it is?

    And see this (or read it, I guess!):
    “This means that if someone says that a year is anomalous they are claiming there exists additional data – the reasons why the year is anomalous. Claiming that it is not anamolous requires no additional data – do you see why this should be the null hypothesis?”

    If you want to start with a different null hypothesis propose and support it – like I have done. I’m perfectly willing to look at this from a different angle.

    Claims that this year is anomolus (yes, its a fucking claim – read the thread, its there both explicitly and implictly all over the place) are based on wild speculation and are supported by no evidence at all. Claims that (you know, what I was actually talking about) the lifetime rate is probably less useful than last years rates is supported both theoretically and empirically.

    “Fuck off or get some motherfucking reading comprehension”

    Physician, heal thyself.
    Oh, and ‘idiotic’ is an abilist term. Please don’t use it.

  70. Well, yes the claim is exactly that – by saying it’s not part of a trend (as many here have) it’s a claim that it is anomalous, and no evidence is presented to support that.

    Stop embarrassing your grade school teachers with your reading incomprehension. I didn’t say it was not part of a trend. I said there is no data presented that indicates it is part of a trend. Different fucking things, you motherfucking incompetent. One of them means that you haven’t presented your case, the other is a negative claim. That you can’t tell the difference speaks volumes of your understanding of the words, but it does nothing to improve Tamens’ and your case.

    And see this (or read it, I guess!):

    I saw it, but it was so fucking ignorant I didn’t think you were seriously going to press it. If you insist, however?

    Your ‘null hypothesis’ presupposes a trend. You can only say you “don’t need more data” if you actually have data that establishes it as part of a trend. Otherwise, you need more fucking data to conclude that something is part of a trend, because, get this, trends involve more than one fucking data point. The null hypothesis is that there is no trend until more data is introduced, because you need more than one fucking data point to talk about where something is going.

    Jesus fuck, are you trying to put on a parody of science, or are you really this fucking inept at it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,355 other followers

%d bloggers like this: