all 63 comments

[–]kinggluejar 114 points115 points  (14 children)

Feminists more than anyone should be celebrating because of this news. How much you want to bet they won't?

[–]Algermas 78 points79 points  (3 children)

The sick and depraved part about feminism and indeed female nature itself is that they don't want this to be true, their entire premise is predicated on the belief that they are eternal victims, always just a step, a moment away from being vicitimized by some Evil Patriarch.

The whole UvA hoax should be a tremendous relief to women because nobody was actually gangraped on a pile of broken glass, but it isn't because it doesn't follow their narrative of men bad, women good.

[–]Claude_Reborn 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The sick and depraved part about feminism and indeed female nature

Feminism hates femininity as much as it hates men. Feminism's black beating heart is angry political lesbians. They are not feminine or masculine and hate both.

[–]Philosophers_Legacy 18 points19 points  (4 children)

This is an amazing opportunity to really troll feminists. Similar to agree and amplify.

"Hey guys, amazing news! Turns out college rape is only 6.1 cases in 1000, not 200 in 1000 like we originally thought. Isn't that amazing? The numbers are much lower than we thought. Looks like we've made a lot of progress!"

[–]ThePacketSlinger 13 points14 points  (0 children)

We taught men not to rape and some of them learned!

[–]2Red_August 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The number is not even a measure of rape, but of sexual assault - a much wider metric.

[–]1Mikesapien 16 points17 points  (0 children)

It runs counter to their 1-in-4 or 1-in-5 myth, so no, they won't be celebrating. Like always, they'll pull some statistical sophistry (bad data) or good old fashioned hand-waving (under-reporting) to sweep this under the rug and ignore the fact that their nonsense is incompatible with reality.

[–]Abadoobie 8 points9 points  (2 children)

It's not in their interest to see sexual violence against women decrease. As much as they say they want it to stop, they also want something they can fight against and rally around and join together to oppose. They want and need a noble female cause to give themselves and their movement an identity and relevance and they won't easily relinquish it. Plus, they've been effectively lying for so long, so loudly and caused such a ruckus that they'd look like morons if they back tracked now. They're kind of committed. In addition, admitting they were wrong would undermine future feminist goals and the very institution that is feminism. Who would take them seriously the next time they make demand because patriarchy?

[–]MagnanimousGenius 4 points5 points  (1 child)

They don't want their funding cut off. If their funding gets cut off, they get no living wage. Erin Pizzey called Feminism the 'Evil Empire' much in the same way Ronald Reagan called the USSR the 'Evil Empire'

They need an eternal female victim hood in order to have a purpose

Edit: At the cost of men, for their convenience. Speeds things up

[–]2Red_August 1 point2 points  (0 children)

it's a big mainstream, and cottage industry. Salaries are at stake.

[–]Endorsed ContributorAerobus 60 points61 points  (10 children)

On the article's comments, Wally Konstanty wrote:

Sexual assaults are down but false sexual charges are on the rise. Professional feminists including professors; writers, and feminist organizations constantly emphasize anti male screeds which include self-serving phony statistics. Some feminist even claim that touching a woman's arm should be classified as a sexual assault.

Some college women drink too much; have sex and then regret it later for a variety of reasons. In group discussions these women are approached by rabid feminists and (then) told they have been raped and to report it.

One question on drinking and sex. Why do feminists consider it rape when a young woman is drinking and then has sex? Why is the same consideration not given to a young man who is drinking and has sex? Why does he have responsibility and the woman relies on victimology? Where is the "equality"?

This is a great comment. The first two paragraphs are something this subreddit and the MensRights subreddit has been discussing for quite a while now, yet, obviously, the feminists in mainstream media never bring up these ideas.

And, for anyone wondering, regarding the third paragraph, there is no equality. Men are the disposable sex. We will never get the coveted victimhood status that women are awarded for simply having a vagina.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (9 children)

(opens a can of controversy)

Alcoholic blackout.

The phenomenon where, when under the influence of alcohol, people will remain mobile and conscious, but later will have no memory of the events. Despite its name, one doesn't have to be an alcoholic i.e. alcohol-dependent in order to experience this, one only needs to binge drink. It doesn't happen with every binge, but it does happen.

[–]gg_s 28 points29 points  (3 children)

That's their problem. No different than driving while blackout drunk. You're still responsible for your actions.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (2 children)

While in absolute truth they should be responsible, there's a legal difference.

If I had had an accident driving blackout drunk, the physical evidence would all be against me; police reports, toxicology, paint smears, etc.

On the other hand, if a woman says "I didn't consent" when in actuality she did, but didn't remember it, there is no physical evidence of the alcoholic blackout state collected in a rape kit. Typically no toxicology is done on the woman "victim" even if the police are involved in a timeframe where such would be possible, unless a "date rape drug" is alleged. Unless the man has witnesses to the consent (who in all honesty may be also accused) or electronic evidence of same, all of the physical evidence is against the man, not the woman.

A defense claim to "she consented but must have been in an alcoholic blackout" would face accusations of "victim blaming," a widespread lack of knowledge in the judicial system and in lay juries about the phenomenon of blackouts, and the high hurdle of proving the actual state of mind at the time.

So no, alcoholic blackouts aren't their problem. They're YOUR problem, potentially, if you have sex with drunk women.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (1 child)

It's not hard for a woman to lie, especially when she feels she must preserve her sexual reputation.

"Forgetting" what happened is more often an excuse or shit test.

[–]1wiseclockcounter 5 points6 points  (0 children)

and we all know how to pass a shit test: agree and amplify. "Your honor that's only half true. It was anal rape. You can't even get pregnant."

[–]1Mikesapien 6 points7 points  (4 children)

"Alcoholic blackout.

It doesn't happen with every binge,

but it does happen."

Not sure what point you're trying to make with this.

"It does happen" to both sexes. Men and women metabolize alcohol differently, but that doesn't make women more susceptible to blackouts by default; even if they get drunker faster, no one is making them drink.

It ultimately comes down to personal responsibility and self-control (feminism's worst enemies). Know your limits, and don't get too drunk. It's that simple. Don't be the person who blacks-out, or worse, the person that tries to get others to black-out, or worse, takes advantage of others who black-out. This goes for everybody, male or female.

[–]1bicepsblastingstud 18 points19 points  (4 children)

It's important to understand where the oft-cited "one in five" number comes from. The "one in five" number wasn't made up; there was some research conducted which lead to that conclusion. So, why is there such a marked difference between those studies (Campus Sexual Assault study (CSA) and NISVS) and this one?

I count three factors.

1) The NCVS (this study) is a study about crime. Respondents were not able to report incidents that they did not consider to be criminal.

From the linked .pdf:

The NCVS, NISVS, and CSA target different types of events. The NCVS definition is shaped from a criminal justice perspective and includes threatened, attempted, and completed rape and sexual assault against males and females (see Methodology). The NISVS uses a broader definition of sexual violence, which specifically mentions incidents in which the victim was unable to provide consent due to drug or alcohol use; forced to penetrate another person; or coerced to engage in sexual contact (including nonphysical pressure to engage in sex) unwanted sexual contact (including forcible kissing, fondling, or grabbing); and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences that do not involve physical contact. The CSA definition of rape and sexual assault includes unwanted sexual contact due to force and due to incapacitation, but excludes unwanted sexual contact due to verbal or emotional coercion.

The NCVS definition of Rape/SexAss was what people traditionally picture when they think of rape: "...the unlawful penetration of a person against the will of the victim, with use or threatened use of force, or attempting such an act. Rape includes psychological coercion and physical force, and forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by the offender..."

Conversely, the other studies counted "inability to consent" as a rape. More specifically:

In the CSA Study, we consider as incapacitate d sexual assault any un wanted sexual contact occurring when a victim is unable to provide consent or stop what is happening because she is passed out, drugged, drunk, incapacita ted, or asleep, regardless of whether the perpetrator was responsible for her substance use [emphasis added] or whether substances were administered without her knowledge. [Krebs et al., 2007]

Without being too blunt about it, this is the "drunk sex is literally rape" position. I have opinions about that, but I'm trying to remain objective.

2) The studies were worded differently.

Unlike the NCVS, which uses terms like rape and unwanted sexual activity to identify victims of rape and sexual assault, the NISVS and CSA use behaviorally specific questions to ascertain whether the respondent experienced rape or sexual assault.

I'm not sure what effect this might have. It's a possibility that the blunt wording of the NCVS stopped people from reporting rape/SexAss, but it's also a possibility that the behaviorally-focused questions of the other two studies caused false recall or caused participants to begin to believe that certain actions were actually sexual assault.

3) The studies collected data differently.

The NCVS uses in-person and telephone interviews to collect data and has an 88% person and 74% overall response rate. The 2011 NISVS uses random-digit dialing with a 33% response rate. The 2007 CSA is a self-administered survey with 33% to 43% response rates.

It is a possibility that victims of rape/sexual assault would be less willing to talk about it to a survey collector (NCVS, lowest reported rate of Rape/SexAss) than to write about it on an anonymous survey (CSA, highest reported rate of rape/SexAss).

To summarize, it's important to understand why people think the way they do, and where they get their information.

If you go posting this shit on facebook, you're going to get ripped apart by anybody who believes that drunk sex is rape, because this study didn't even touch that.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

The bolded section would add much in terms of "regret sex" and "gave consent but don't remember it because of 'blackout' binge drinking" to the counts.

I seem to recall some other criticisms of the methodology to the 1:5 study result, but can't put my finger on them immediately. Maybe someone else will chime in with it.

[–]AlfaGTV6 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This article breaks down all of those numbers and shows how they got them. Alot of it seems to be bad math. No statistician but I did major in physics and some of it ain't quite right.

[–]fopdespotic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

From a legal standpoint, it is against the law to engage in sexual activities with a person who is intoxicated to a point of incoherence or incapacitated. Would the bold section not fall under the law?

Edit: In fact, I have it right here:

Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency knowingly -

  1. renders another person unconscious and thereby engages in a sexual act with that other person; or

  2. administers to another person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or permission of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby -

A. substantially impairs the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct; and

B. engages in a sexual act with that other person; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for any term of years or life, or both.

Section 2242. Sexual Abuse Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States or in a Federal prison, or in any prison, institution, or facility in which persons are held in custody by direction of or pursuant to a contract or agreement with the head of any Federal department or agency, knowingly - ...

  1. engages in a sexual act with another person if that other person is -

A. incapable of appraising the nature of the conduct; or

B. physically incapable of declining participation in, or communicating unwillingness to engage in, that sexual act; or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

[–]jsalathe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That 1 in 5 number was what the study authors felt was sexual assault and included things like, unwanted groping, sex where, upon reflection the girl regrets, and sex while inebriated, but still cognizant. In fact, the number of girls who felt they were sexually assaulted was much lower and the number who were legally sexually assaulted was around 1.5%. The whole thing was made for feminist fodder. On my phone now, so can't easily cite. Ask me for citations, if needed.

[–]1tombreck2 28 points29 points  (5 children)

Generalizing here; if you don't go to college then you might not hang with the best crowd and thus are at more risk for crimes to occur to you

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points  (2 children)

Non-students aren't people who never went to college; they're people who were not in college at the time of the survey. Minor clarification seemed to be needed.

Edit to add quote (below) from the study, it's the proper age range comparison, but there's not any "never went to" category. Some of the 18-24s surveyed could have gone but not finished, gone and finished, be about to go, and some may never go to college. It's a mix of all situations which fit the two criteria (a) proper age range, and (b) not a student at the time they took the NCVS.

Within the 18 to 24 age group, victims could be identified as students enrolled in a college, university, trade school or vocational school or as nonstudents.

You are correct in that college is a controlled environment, however, with better policing of situations and a less-likely-to-be-criminally-inclined group of immediate peers.

[–]1tombreck2 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I thought non-student meant people from the same age group of high school class

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Within the 18 to 24 age group, victims could be identified as students enrolled in a college, university, trade school or vocational school or as nonstudents.

Will add to my above answer.

[–]Elim101 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I thought the same thing, that it was related to socioeconomic status. It would be worth a look. As far as the current debate goes, however, the causal mechanism doesn't matter. Feminists want to paint college campuses as places where rape is inherently more likely to occur, and these stats debunk that claim.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Editorial comment:

One table that I wish they had done, but they didn't, was whether the assault victim had been under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the assault. (Table 7, which talks about usage, is the victim's perception of the attacker's state)

[–]1Jaereth 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Oh no, that doesn't fit the narrative... Better not let this little factoid get out.

[–]100 Modbsutansalt 6 points7 points  (1 child)



I will admit, I have not read the whole report myself yet, however, the first link contains some snippets particularly this one:

The full study, which was published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a division within DOJ, found that rather than one in five female college students becoming victims of sexual assault, the actual rate is 6.1 per 1,000 students, or 0.61 percent (instead of 1-in-5, the real number is 0.03-in-5).

That's a pretty amazing figure. Instead of the 20-25% figure we hear feminists regurgitate, it's really 0.61%.

This article is a pretty damn fine summation of my thoughts on the subject:

[–]prodigyx 8 points9 points  (5 children)

I'd like to point out that all this data is based on a survey. They asked 160k people if they had been raped. There is no accountability; no consequences for lying.

It does not include any information about actual reports of rape. By actual reports, I mean going to the police, getting a rape kit done, filing charges, etc.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

In the current environment that means incidences are likely over-reported rather than under-reported.

[–]1Mikesapien -1 points0 points  (3 children)

And as studies tend to show, women who are asked directly, "Were you raped?", are less forthcoming than if the question is worded/investigated differently (people avoid "the r word" even when it applies).

[–]Abadoobie 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Yep, because they also don't share the same definition of rape as the survey. It's pretty standard in those kinds of surveys to ask if they have experienced a specific sequence of events rather than define the sequence with a word. They would not say, "Have you ever been raped?" they usually ask something like, "Have you ever been penetrated orally, vaginally or anally with a penis, an object or another body part by a partner when you didn't want to be?"

[–]Endorsed Contributorcocaine_face 0 points1 point  (1 child)

But again, "didn't want to be" isn't the same as "without consent".

I've had sex when I didn't want to do so. I've also taken out the trash when I didn't want to. There's a difference between, "Ugh, fine, I'll have sex", and "NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!!"

I'd assume most relationships one partner won't -really- be in the mood but will still be willing to do it for the other partner, for example.

[–]Abadoobie -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not really the topic I was commenting on but sure.

[–]sir_wankalot_here 11 points12 points  (4 children)

Comical how a lot of TRP gets paranoid based on information provided by feminazis. I am talking about the paranoia of false rape accusations.

According to OP the reported case of sexual assualt is 0.61%. It then has to be determined how many cases are really cases of sexual assualt ? For the sake of argument lets say the figure is 50%. So that means 0.31% of women make false rape accusations.

Most of the false rape accusations are caused by the guy being stupid. The story about a guy having sex with a chick and then boasting to all his friends 5 minutes later is a classic example. This eliminates a lot of cases.

So providing the the guy is smart, the chances are false rape are almost none.

[–]LeGrandDiableBlanc 14 points15 points  (1 child)

The number one thing is to be discreet. Women love a guy they can fuck like an animal who won't go out and hurt her reputation by spreading the word.

[–]FascistComicBookHero 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, using your numbers, if a man has sexual relations with a 100 women he will have a greater than 25% chance of being the target of a false accusation. You'd be a fool to risk those odds considering the consequences of a negative outcome.

[–]1bicepsblastingstud -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Comical how a lot of TRP gets paranoid based on information provided by feminazis. I am talking about the paranoia of false rape accusations.

Guarantee the guys freaking out aren't the ones getting laid anyways.

[–]legauge 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I guess it's time for female college students to check their privilege.

[–]Rougepellet 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Feminists are pulling "facts" out of their asshole and ths masses are eating it all up.

[–]lefunnymaymay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well a lot of feminists are college students so that's why there is such a large focus on it.

[–]Glenbert 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Feminists should be rejoicing. This is a victory for them and a wonderful thing for society!

Holding my breath.

[–]MartialWay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The sad thing is that people actually believed that educated middle/upper class people had these low crime rates, suddenly went on an insane rape rampage for four years in college, and then went back to not committing crime for the rest of their lives. This somehow made sense to people.

[–]Dr_Gabe_Lackman 0 points1 point  (0 children)

but but... muh soggy knees...

[–]lvl4crazy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Anyone notice that the primary author of the study is a male intern? Can we really trust a college male to honestly report data about the troubling amount of rape in this country? Especially one with a Middle Eastern sounding name, who knows what kind of prejudiced Islamic views this man has of women. There's a 20% chance this man could be a rapist himself and covering his own ass.

In all seriousness, this survey sounds too good to be true, and it is. The catch? The second page of the study states that they use a method that does not count "incidents in which the victim was unable to provide consent due to drug or alcohol use". Since these incidents are still considered rape by legal and feminist definitions, this study will be easily dismissed by feminism as a misleading study.

I'm sure even including those incidents, the rate is much lower than 20%. Too bad it won't make a difference. Don't underestimate the power of the biased sociological think-tank that is feminism.

[–]MelodyMyst -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Raise the drinking age to 25. Maybe make drinking something you can only do after you have completed a course on how-to responsibly. Then after completion you get a alcohol license. If you are caught drinking without your license you get fined or community service or even jailed after multiple violations.

I don't remember the exact quote from the movie parenthood but I think it is relevant here...

You need a license to drive a car. You need a license to own a gun. Hell, you even need a license to catch a fish. But they will let any butt-reaming asshole be a father.

With all the misery, death, and drama associated with alcohol there should be some better controls.

[–]oaddsandk -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

The full study, which was published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, a division within DOJ, found that rather than one in five female college students becoming victims of sexual assault, the actual rate is 6.1 per 1,000 students, or 0.61 percent (instead of 1-in-5, the real number is 0.03-in-5). For non-students, the rate of sexual assault is 7.6 per 1,000 people.

They found that only 20% of rape or sexual assault victimizations against females ages 18 to 24 went reported.

This means that the real number is 0.15 in 5 (or 15 in 1000), which is still an insane difference to what feminists claim.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

No, the rate they calculated included both reported AND unreported rapes/attempted rapes/sexual assaults.

It's a survey, the NCVS.

[–]gg_s -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Actually, only 10% of unreported rape victims answered the survey, so the real real number is 150 in 1000.

Half of them failed to mention their friend's rape, so the real real real number is 300 in 1000.

They found that 20% of your day goes unreported. There are really 29 hours in a day.

See how easy this is?

[–]oaddsandk -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Hah. I just misread the study. Though unlike feminists I realize I misread it and changes my views accordingly.

[–]venturecapitalcat -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately, all the facts in the world won't change their agenda. With logic like "drunk sex = non-consensual sex only if you're a woman," I think that the outrage machine will just keep on changing the definition of rape until merely having a penis and not being brain dead will be grounds for charging people with "conspiracy to rape."

[–]billthane -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The percentage of this which is actually full out PiV rape is probably incredibly small, all things considered. Wow... Slightly different from the 25% quoted everywhere.