Rolling Stone Article on Rape at University of Virginia Failed All Basics, Report Says - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;47472734]The problem with the "1 in 5 women will be raped on college campuses" statistic is that the surveyors asked questions, then decided what constitutes rape based on the answers. For example, it might have asked "Have you ever had sex while you were drunk?" If a women answered yes to that question, the surveyor decided that the woman had been raped, and counted it towards the statistic despite the fact that the woman who answered doesn't consider themselves to have been raped at all.[/QUOTE] That's still rape, brah.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;47472734]The problem with the "1 in 5 women will be raped on college campuses" statistic is that the surveyors asked questions, then decided what constitutes rape based on the answers. For example, it might have asked "Have you ever had sex while you were drunk?" If a women answered yes to that question, the surveyor decided that the woman had been raped, and counted it towards the statistic despite the fact that the woman who answered doesn't consider themselves to have been raped at all.[/QUOTE] I don't think the people conducting these survey's need to buff their numbers at all with nit-picking like that, I can see where you're coming from though it seems a little silly.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47472777]That's still rape, brah.[/QUOTE] Well this may have been a good example. But my point is that according to that statistic, there are millions of women alive today who are oblivious to the fact that they were "raped" because the survey was poorly constructed and they were never asked if they had been raped themselves.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47472730]The rape culture arguments are a lot easier to understand when you see numbers like 20-26% of women experiencing completed or attempted sexual assault while in college. I really suggest reading in detail. I never [I]quite[/I] sneered at the rape culture thing, but I started taking it a lot more seriously when I started seeing real numbers like that. When you're facing one-in-four odds, I can understand the "predatory environment" rhetoric. I mean, imagine if being a pizza delivery driver carried a one-in-four chance of being sexually assaulted. The CEO of Papa Johns would be facing charges from the attorneys general of all 50 states. It would be a [I]huge[/I] deal. So why do people blow off the fact that 4 years of education can carry that risk? Please give it some thought.[/QUOTE] I'm open to good data, but I still find the 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 number ridiculously high. I'll look through it when I have time.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;47472800]Well this may have been a good example. But my point is that according to that statistic, there are millions of women alive today who are oblivious to the fact that they were "raped" because the survey was poorly constructed and they were never asked if they had been raped themselves.[/QUOTE] There are huge cultural deterrents to announcing to the world that you were raped, or even announcing it to a survey taker. Also, don't you know anything about how domestic violence works? Why women swear up and down that they weren't abused and all those bruises have perfectly rational explanations? And, yeah, maybe a lot of women are just ignorant of the fact that blackout drunk sex =/= consensual sex, and non-consensual sex = sexual assault. [editline]7th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47472802]I'm open to good data, but I still find the 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 number ridiculously high. I'll look through it when I have time.[/QUOTE] I'm telling you, mate, once you start to get your head around that, the hysteria doesn't seem as hysterical anymore.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47472820]And, yeah, maybe a lot of women are just ignorant of the fact that blackout drunk sex =/= consensual sex, and non-consensual sex = sexual assault. [/QUOTE] We're not talking about passed out/blacked out drunk sex. We're talking about sex after consuming any amount of alcohol or drugs whatsoever. Based on these definitions, I'm a multiple rapist and I've been raped countless times as well.

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;47472830]We're not talking about passed out/blacked out drunk sex. We're talking about sex after consuming any amount of alcohol or drugs whatsoever. Based on these definitions, I'm a multiple rapist and I've been raped countless times as well.[/QUOTE] If that's the definition then 1 in 4 or 5 is [I]very, very[/I] conservative, try shooting for "close to 100%"...

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;47472830]We're not talking about passed out/blacked out drunk sex. We're talking about sex after consuming any amount of alcohol or drugs whatsoever. Based on these definitions, I'm a multiple rapist and I've been raped countless times as well.[/QUOTE] So, where in the methodology of any of these reports does it say "We check the rape box when any amount of alcohol or drugs whatsoever was consumed"? The researchers aren't fucking stupid.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47472861]So, where in the methodology of any of these reports does it say "We check the rape box when any amount of alcohol or drugs whatsoever was consumed"? The researchers aren't fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] How do they handle the drunk rape question in an objective way then? They have to take them into account.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47472777]That's still rape, brah.[/QUOTE] Actually no, the statistic which varies between 1 in 6 to 1 in 3 depending on whose trying to regurgitate it, not only does not match up with current downfalls in violent and other crimes. The people inside the study were the final judge of whether it was rape or not, not the people being surveyed. In fact their opinions and statements were almost completely ignored unless it made it sound like rape. [B]Can I also point out do you realize how fucking horrific a 1 in 5 statistic would be? 64,272,557 people. THAT IS CRIME WAVE EPIDEMIC LEVELS.[/B]

[QUOTE=Swilly;47475689] [B]Can I also point out do you realize how fucking horrific a 1 in 5 statistic would be? 64,272,557 people. THAT IS CRIME WAVE EPIDEMIC LEVELS.[/B][/QUOTE] Yes, it is and it is.

Also the survey completely ignored men who took the survey.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47475700]Yes, it is and it is.[/QUOTE] I don't think you realize what kind of world we would be living in if 1 in 5 women had actually been raped. Our way of life would be drastically changed. Women would be treated completely differently than they are now if rape was that common. I don't think you realize how huge a number 1 in 5 really is. If the number really was 1 in 5, trust me, you would be able to tell right away. There would be no debate.

[QUOTE=stupid10er;47469924]there's jokes and references in terms of the holocaust, slavery, bestiality, etc. when did this "holier-than-thou" attitude spring up to propagate the idea that one social atrocity is objectively worse than the other?[/QUOTE] Because there can very often be a fine line between sex and rape, there is in no way a fine line between the holocaust and anything else ever - why is this so hard to understand? Rape is hugely dissimilar to all these other crimes people are trying to draw parallels to

[QUOTE=Pantz Master;47475924]I don't think you realize what kind of world we would be living in if 1 in 5 women had actually been raped. Our way of life would be drastically changed. Women would be treated completely differently than they are now if rape was that common. I don't think you realize how huge a number 1 in 5 really is. If the number really was 1 in 5, trust me, you would be able to tell right away. There would be no debate.[/QUOTE] Among women there IS no debate. The "debate" is among people like you that deny there is a problem because the numbers are too big to get your head around.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47478368]Among women there IS no debate. The "debate" is among people like you that deny there is a problem because the numbers are too big to get your head around.[/QUOTE] If you bothered to search about rebuttals, you would find plenty academic feminists who are very outspoken on how misleading that number is. It was a web-based survey where the response rate was quite low and most likely biased since it's way more likely for people actually affected by that to answer that type of survey in the first place. The real number is 6.1 per 1,000, [url]http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5176[/url] But keep overreacting and spreading fear.

[QUOTE=bunguer;47478478]If you bothered to search about rebuttals, you would find plenty academic feminists who are very outspoken on how misleading that number is. It was a web-based survey where the response rate was quite low and most likely biased since it's way more likely for people actually affected by that to answer that type of survey in the first place. The real number is 6.1 per 1,000, [url]http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5176[/url] But keep overreacting and spreading fear.[/QUOTE] That only measures an extremely specific age range, AND you're just cherry-picking the single study out of a wide body of research whose methodology is best-geared to spit out a lower number.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47478854]That only measures an extremely specific age range, AND you're just cherry-picking the single study out of a wide body of research whose methodology is best-geared to spit out a lower number.[/QUOTE] And you think an online survey that had a small answer pool yields more reliable numbers? Or is this a case of "I believe this because I [I]want[/I] to believe this" (which coincidentally is also the reason why the author of the article this thread's about was so willing to report "Jackie's" story)? Either way, I'd really like to try whatever it is you've been smoking.

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;47478925]And you think an online survey that had a small answer pool yields more reliable numbers? Or is this a case of "I believe this because I [I]want[/I] to believe this" (which coincidentally is also the reason why the author of the article this thread's about was so willing to report "Jackie's" story)? Either way, I'd really like to try whatever it is you've been smoking.[/QUOTE] I think I believe the CDC report, which used direct interviews of a very large pool of respondents. There is no possible way to look at that and say "Pfft, it's not a real problem." People like you are the reason it is a huge problem. People like you are the ones that sit behind a desk at the police station and sneer at women who try to report assaults and lecture them on how it probably wasn't [I]really[/I] rape and that they'd be better off not reporting it, instead of treating it like the actual crime it is.

[QUOTE=dilzinyomouth;47466692]the drop in male student participation in tertiary education[/QUOTE] Yeah I'm totally not going to college and totally switching my life around just because a few frat dipshits had their dipshitism publicized. [editline]7th April 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47478368]The "debate" is among people like you that deny there is a problem because the numbers are too big to get your head around.[/QUOTE] Why can't we ever have a calm, reasonable debate without personal insults?

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47478990]I think I believe the CDC report, which used direct interviews of a very large pool of respondents. There is no possible way to look at that and say "Pfft, it's not a real problem." People like you are the reason it is a huge problem. People like you are the ones that sit behind a desk at the police station and sneer at women who try to report assaults and lecture them on how it probably wasn't [I]really[/I] rape and that they'd be better off not reporting it, instead of treating it like the actual crime it is.[/QUOTE] So saying that the 1-in-5 statistic is BS (a statement many academics, many of those being women, agree with) immediately means that I don't think rape is a problem? It immediately means I'm some sadistic douchebag who gives no fucks about rape victims? If this is your attempt at trying to bait me into a flame war, you better try harder than that.

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;47479037]So saying that the 1-in-5 statistic is BS (a statement many academics, many of those being women, agree with) immediately means that I don't think rape is a problem? It immediately means I'm some sadistic douchebag who gives no fucks about rape victims? If this is your attempt at trying to bait me into a flame war, you better try harder than that.[/QUOTE] So if you're so much smarter than all the people doing these studies, what do you think the number is, and what study have you conducted to reach that conclusions? Harping on about how it's not that big of a problem is exactly the attitude shown by people that don't take victims seriously, and that's exactly the attitude that coerces women into keeping quiet. You, sir, are definitely part of the problem.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47479059]So if you're so much smarter than all the people doing these studies, what do you think the number is, and what study have you conducted to reach that conclusions? Harping on about how it's not that big of a problem is exactly the attitude shown by people that don't take victims seriously, and that's exactly the attitude that coerces women into keeping quiet. You, sir, are definitely part of the problem.[/QUOTE] You're still making assumptions on my character. Saying "it's not the big of a problem" is nowhere near "it's not a problem at all", and it's pretty damn arrogant of you to think otherwise. Like I've said, there are a shitton of academics who disagree with the findings your sources support, and usually when that happens that means tha answer isn't as concrete as you'd like, especially when said academics are saying the methods used to achieve these numbers are flawed. You wanna see for yourself? Go get that CDC study, and compare the methodology of it's data acquisition and compare it to [URL="http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317"]the numerous studies and statistics[/URL] on the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which range from college-aged females (a similar age group as the online survey the 1-in-5 statistic originated from, and the BJS' numbers show a much lower rate), to more broad age ranges. You want to know what the truth is? Take it straight for the goddamn horse's mouth, and stop making assumptions on the characters of people who disagree with you.

[QUOTE=Xenomoose;47479139]You're still making assumptions on my character. Saying "it's not the big of a problem" is nowhere near "it's not a problem at all", and it's pretty damn arrogant of you to think otherwise. Like I've said, there are a shitton of academics who disagree with the findings your sources support, and usually when that happens that means tha answer isn't as concrete as you'd like, especially when said academics are saying the methods used to achieve these numbers are flawed. You wanna see for yourself? Go get that CDC study, and compare the methodology of it's data acquisition and compare it to [URL="http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317"]the numerous studies and statistics[/URL] on the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which range from college-aged females (a similar age group as the online survey the 1-in-5 statistic originated from, and the BJS' numbers show a much lower rate), to more broad age ranges. You want to know what the truth is? Take it straight for the goddamn horse's mouth, and stop making assumptions on the characters of people who disagree with you.[/QUOTE] You're just posting the same thing over and over and ignorant anyone and everyone else that researches the issue. If you are that dead set in your denial I'm not going to waste my time.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;47479164]You're just posting the same thing over and over and ignorant anyone and everyone else that researches the issue. If you are that dead set in your denial I'm not going to waste my time.[/QUOTE] Because Rape studies are notoriously littered with issues. Two studies in the late 90's, with the same questions, came out with wildly different results.

[QUOTE=gk99;47479014]Why can't we ever have a calm, reasonable debate without personal insults?[/QUOTE] because sexual assault is for some reason a political issue, and when you politicize something, it's inevitably polarized along sometimes arbitrary lines (pro v.s. con, conservative v.s. liberal, republican v.s. democrat) the inevitable result of this polarization is that anyone in a debate is more focused on "winning" than reconciling differences as a means of finding a greater truth. this is especially true if a certain ideological position is backed by a political group or movement, because it means that "winning" the debate means gaining a "victory" for whatever group you're a part of. it also means that when someone tries to challenge one's preconceived beliefs, then that's an affront to the group that a person is within. there are a variety of observed psychological phenomena that underlie this sort of stuff: 1. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_polarization"]group polarization[/URL] - when surrounded with like-minded individuals, an echo-chamber develops that causes one's positions to become more extreme towards their initial leanings. 2. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_favoritism"]in-group favoritism[/URL] - human beings tend to favor those that are in groups with which they identify than with groups that they don't. this isn't just true of groups that have meaningful consequences; the ingroup can be entirely arbitrary and yet still yield favoritism: [QUOTE]Henri Tajfel, a British social psychologist... looked at the psychological root of in-group/out-group bias. To study this in the lab, Tajfel and colleagues created what are now known as minimal groups (see minimal group paradigm), which occur when [B]"complete strangers are formed into groups using the most trivial criteria imaginable"[/B]. In Tajfel's studies, participants were split into groups by flipping a coin, and each group then was told to appreciate a certain style of painting none of the participants were familiar with when the experiment began. [B]What Tajfel and his colleagues discovered was that—regardless of the facts that a) participants did not know each other, b) their groups were completely meaningless, and c) none of the participants had any inclination as to which "style" they like better—participants almost always "liked the members of their own group better and they rated the members of their in-group as more likely to have pleasant personalities".[/B][/QUOTE] Tajfel's study in specific also examined how those dynamics affect self-esteem; in the context of a debate, some might say that an affront to one's in-group's beliefs is essentially an attack on their self-esteem. 3. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(psychology)"]attribution theory[/URL] (and how it related to in-group favoritism) - some psychologists suggest that human beings generally either attribute one's behaviors to their personalities or their circumstances. for example, if your boss is snippy and tight-assed, you might attribute that to either your boss being a tight-ass by nature, or your boss being a tight-ass because they had a bad day. in the context of in-group favoritism, if your boss is in your in-group (say a circle of friends), you're more likely to attribute their annoying behavior as being the result of a bad day. by contrast, if your boss acts in the exact same way, but happens to be in the out-group, then you'll be more likely to think that they're just asshats by nature. the opposite can be said of positive traits, as well: if you like Bill Gates, and you read about how he's donated some million dollars to charity again, you'll be more likely to say that Bill Gates did that because he's a good person.

[QUOTE=Swilly;47479368]Because Rape studies are notoriously littered with issues. Two studies in the late 90's, with the same questions, came out with wildly different results.[/QUOTE] No you don't understand Swilly if you don't blindly agree with everything Used Car Salesman says about rape culture and the like then you're obviously a rape supporter or at least a rape apologist. I mean clearly there's no other explanation :v:

Rape just like any other traumatic event is being sensationalized by the media with the help of poorly done, poorly interpreted statistics and with the help of good old baseless exaggerations. It doesn't mean rape has stopped existing. It doesn't mean rape is [I]not[/I] an issue. It just means the media is just as willing to utilize rape to make money as they're willing to utilize murder, robbery, and any other crime that happens on a daily basis. The only difference is that since rape is a touchier subject than outright murder or robbery people actually hesitate on criticizing the sources and statistics for fear of sounding like rape apologists.

[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47468663]There already is, filing false police reports is illegal. Making laws against false rape accusations specifically could backfire and make rape victims less likely to report their rape because of worry that it would be deemed false.[/QUOTE] If punishment was predicated on burden of proof beyond a shadow of a doubt on the falsely accused in a counter-suit, actual rape victims would have nothing to fear in coming forward. What penalizing people who levy false rape claims for personal gain or satisfaction would do is bring at least a tiny form of justice to the falsely accused (whose life is now permanently and irrevocably ruined,) and it would make rape accusations be taken a bit more seriously. If we can punish the false claims as deterrent, there would be even less filling the system, meaning that the actual victims of rape can see justice sooner and their claims will be more likely to be believed. Actual rape victims and the falsely accused would benefit from penalizing false rape claims. Those liars don't only harm the reputation of the people they accuse, but they harm actual rape victims because rape victims are more likely to be seen as liars. This is a win/win situation.

All I know is that after all investigations, there are people that still believe she was raped. And these people are nuts.