In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff


We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.







Try Advanced Search


  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...


CultureBlogs
Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
PhilosoBlog
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Gregdotorg
BookSlut
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Cronaca
Plep
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Seablogger
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette


Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Samizdata
Junius
Joanne Jacobs
CalPundit
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Public Interest.co.uk
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
Spleenville
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
CinderellaBloggerfella
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
InstaPundit
MindFloss
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes


Miscellaneous
Redwood Dragon
IMAO
The Invisible Hand
ScrappleFace
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz

Links


Our Last 50 Referrers







« We Want Your Business | Main | Your Opinion Wanted »

February 26, 2008

Campuses and Rapes

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Heather Mac Donald reviews the status of Ivy League rape centers. Her article also functions as a review of just how nutso sexual matters became in the early '90s. Nice quote:

The campus rape industry's central tenet is that one-quarter of all college girls will be raped or be the targets of attempted rape by the end of their college years. This claim, first published in Ms. magazine in 1987, took the universities by storm.

By the early 1990s, campus rape centers and 24-hour hotlines were opening across the country, aided by tens of millions of dollars of federal funding. [Sorry -- couldn't resist highlighting that passage. Ed.] Victimhood rituals sprang up: first the Take Back the Night rallies, in which alleged rape victims reveal their stories to gathered crowds of candle-holding supporters; then the Clothesline Project, in which T-shirts made by self-proclaimed rape survivors are strung on campus, while recorded sounds of gongs and drums mark minute-by-minute casualties of the "rape culture." A special rhetoric emerged: victims’ family and friends were "co-survivors"; "survivors" existed in a larger "community of survivors."

An army of salesmen took to the road, selling advice to administrators on how to structure sexual-assault procedures, and lecturing freshmen on the "undetected rapists" in their midst. Rape bureaucrats exchanged notes at such gatherings as the Inter Ivy Sexual Assault Conferences and the New England College Sexual Assault Network. Organizations like One in Four and Men Can Stop Rape tried to persuade college boys to redefine their masculinity away from the "rape culture."...

None of this crisis response occurs, of course -- because the crisis doesn't exist. During the 1980s, feminist researchers committed to the rape-culture theory had discovered that asking women directly if they had been raped yielded disappointing results -- very few women said that they had been. So Ms. commissioned University of Arizona public health professor Mary Koss to develop a different way of measuring the prevalence of rape. Rather than asking female students about rape per se, Koss asked them if they had experienced actions that she then classified as rape. Koss’s method produced the 25 percent rate, which Ms. then published.

It's funny, isn't it, the way some people claim that Political Correctness (or Sexual Correctness) never existed, isn't it? Of course it did. I'm reminded of the way some people, when thinking back to (or remembering) '70s-style feminism, say, "Oh, it wasn't so bad." Sure it was. I compiled some examples of how loony things got in this posting.

Here's Mary Koss's page at the U. of Arizona's website. Christina Hoff Sommers reviews feminists' claims about rape.

Best,

Michael

posted by Michael at February 26, 2008




Comments

A significant stumbling block to the "rape crisis movement" was that when real rapes were reported, the suspects tended not to fit the profile of someone who plays lacrosse at Duke.

Feminism, it must be remembered, is not a catalog of women's complaints about men. It's a catalog of American women's complaints about American men.

Why American women think American men are the world's worst is beyond me, but then I didn't go to the best schools.

Posted by: Reg Cæsar on February 26, 2008 4:03 AM



One of the useful questions Ayn Rand used to ask people she argued with was, "What is your premise?"

So, Michael, I ask you what your premise or perhaps your argument here is?

Yes, there is a hysterical, extreme form of feminism, but it may have developed in some part, as a reaction to social beliefs about rape that were prevalent before the 70s: that there really was no such thing as rape, women secretly want to be raped, women who were raped were responsible by provoking it, rape was just a woman's expression of buyer's remorse the morning after, etc.

Posted by: Peter L. Winkler on February 26, 2008 5:28 AM



What insane and vicious demagoguery.

This campaign of lies against men ended my life as a leftist. The tactics are pure Bolshevism.

How do we reverse the bitter legacy of the rape and sexual violence hysteria? I haven't got a clue. I do know that the payback in the future will be catastrophic.

I don't believe that "born gay" thesis. A small number of men are "born gay." The cities weren't flooded with gay men from the college towns because something magically changed about humans. This campaign of hysteria and denunciation led weak men to homosexuality as a way to avoid the evil eye of these crazy women (and their male co-conspirators).

Evil does exist. I really didn't believe in the existence of evil until the feminazis came along to prove it. It's surprising just how thoroughly evil and vicious women can be, isn't it?

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on February 26, 2008 8:32 AM



Michael, I read through your earlier post.

The responses of feminist women to that earlier post are stark raving mad.

The consistent theme is: "What's the harm in a little demagoguery? We got what we wanted."

Ugh! As I said... evil does exist.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on February 26, 2008 9:22 AM



Your quote seems to imply that Koss's method of measuring rape is less accurate than asking directly, but if you follow your own link to Sommers's analysis, I think you'd have to agree it's more accurate:

Koss counted anyone who answered affirmatively to any of the last three questions as having been raped:

8. Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?

9. Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you?

10. Have you had sexual acts (anal or oral intercourse or penetration by objects other than the penis) when you didn't want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you?

Of those who answered "yes" to any of these questions, only 27% labeled themselves as rape victims. It's true that there is some ambiguity in question 8, but I think the idea that a woman was raped even though she doesn't call it rape is a good insight. Compare it to spousal abuse. I guarantee you'll get very different answers to the questions "does your husband ever hit you in anger?" and "are you an abuse victim?"

Finally, an anecdote from a rape victim:

Someone I knew at college was going on about how inflated he thought the "one in four women" statistic was. He was sitting at a dinner table with a bunch of people, four of whom happened to be women, so in mid-rant he counted us off and said something like, "Now, see, isn't that ridiculous?"

I said, very quietly, "You don't know half of what you think you know." And one of the other women looked at me, nodded, and said, "Yeah, half sounds about right." Thankfully, nobody else had to make it three-quarters.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on February 26, 2008 10:08 AM



I daresay there isn't a man with any sexual experience who hasn't at one time attempted to force sex on a woman. By the same token there isn't a woman with sexual experience who hasn't been able to parry the man's attempt - with the exception of the truly violent, out of control assault, which is a rarity - if she so desires. Men are not brutes and women are not passive doormats; except when feminists game the system to get the desired results.

Posted by: ricpic on February 26, 2008 10:51 AM



JewishAtheist,

It's seldom that I find it useful to say this, but in this case, you deserve it.

You are a damned liar. You aren't serving some elevated political cause. The tactics you are using are the tactics of Nazis and Bolsheviks. At its ultimate, the tactics you use lead to outright war and mass murder.

What blurs your vision and allows you to engage in such consummately evil lying is that old saw... the fallacy of good intentions.

This evil that you support grew legs because everybody wanted to put on their halo when it came to protecting women. It became an asinine, idiot contest.

Rid yourself of this evil hatred of your fellow man. It's disgusting.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on February 26, 2008 10:58 AM



I was going to say what Reg already has. That, when I was going to school, the few Rapes and Assaults that were reported in the paper got almost no "real" attention.

I can not say why...I don't know. But, my hunch is that the women (who were not raped, but were "active" in the community) were not interested in protesting against the actual criminals. The criminals, by the description given in ALL of the articles, described guys who were either Inner-City Youths or Lower-Class Thugs.

Never some Applied Mathematics major.

Question 8 reminds me of this article where doctors tested 75 women who claimed to be drugged or have their drink spiked.

Drug rape myth exposed as study reveals binge drinking is to blame

Of the 75 women that reported being drugged, 0 were true.

And questions 9 and 10 beg the question, why were the women not being asked if they were being forced to have sex?

I completely understand that many, many victims actually blame themselves after they have been brutally victimized (I read a lot about PTSD), but why not simply ask the women if they were forced to have sex?

The question: "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to ..." applies to so many girls I know who have (AFAIK) never been raped.

I am not trying to be insensitive. But, they get to a certian age where they seem to be more and more interested in Male attention. They then decide to start going to Frat parties and hanging out in the woods drinking with the older guys. Along the way, they lose their virginity and more.

Later on, all of this is recounted in the language of victimhood.

One of the main reasons why this whole subject angers someone like me is that I firmly believe this reduces the amount of attention, resources and plain-old sympathy that real victims deserve.

Anyway, I could go on.

Hey, MB, a tip for a possible future posting: The link between Immigration and Sexual Slavery. Absolutely Heart-breaking stuff.

Posted by: Ian Lewis on February 26, 2008 12:05 PM



Shouting Thomas:

Can you be more specific? What did I write that was a lie?

Posted by: JewishAtheist on February 26, 2008 12:07 PM



JA, I like you, but you really cannot have read the Sommers piece with any attention at all and then have written that post.

And why oh why do you think anecdotal evidence like your table conversation has any weight at all in any argument about the use and misuse of statistics?

As for Peter Winkler, excusing lies and gender hatred as a reaction (implication: justified reaction) to earlier poisonous ideas about rape is as rhetorically dishonest as JA's excrescence. Is the one in four figure accurate or not? Answer: it isn't. That's the question. If you've been falling off the horse to the right for years, the solution isn't to fall off the horse to the left. It's to get into the saddle and stay there.

The most interesting aspect of the Sommers piece to me was its raising of the truly taboo subject in America: class. The cramming of money onto campuses in response to a non-existent rape crisis was only one side of the ugly classist coin: the other being the utter indifference of feminists to the fate of their less educated, less affluent sisters. If feminists have ever been concerned about anything other than their internal argument with men of their class, education and income, they've succeeded in concealing that fact. Their contempt for Paula Jones, their abysmal lack of interest in the fate of women in Muslim countries, and the massive misallocation of funds into campus rape centres, all give the lie to their claims of universal sisterhood.

Feminists care only about themselves, and about women as much like them as possible, and focus their hatred (and their endless never-to-be-satisfied demands) on only one group: white men of their class. The rest of the world, men, women, children and all, can go hang.

Class: the underlying dynamic that drives PC, including feminist PC.

Posted by: PatrickH on February 26, 2008 12:32 PM



As I was (and am) a relatively large and threatening-looking guy, I spent some time at my university in Boston as a campus "escort", walking single or small groups of women around the campus in the evening. This was no sinecure, as the Allston/Brighton section of Boston was the Rape Capital of the World back in the Eighties. As the greater Boston area is home to innumerable colleges and universities, it was a simple restatement of the great Willie Sutton line-the sexual predators were going where the young women were.

I also think back to the parties at my best friend's fraternity at one of the "Little Ivy" schools nearby. There were many parties that included grape juice & grain alcohol (the drinking age was 18), tanks of nitrous oxide, kegs of beer and assorted other methods of temporarily taking leave of one's senses. They also included 18-19 year old "women" of the 4.0 GPA/National Merit Finalist persuasion that had very little experience with alcohol, drugs or horny "men" all in the same room. I don't recall anyone being very concerned about a girl's degree of coherence before leading her upstairs to one of the brothers' rooms; I know I saw and did things that skirted the ragged edge of legality, and I'm not talking about the bong hits.

I don't excuse the PC silliness promulgated by the Old School feminists; I recently saw a "style section" interview in the paper with Robin Morgan, a woman quoted back in the day as saying "Kill your fathers!". She was treated as some sort of grandmotherly gray eminence of the women's movement! I half expected the reporter to ask her about her favorite recipes for grilling a male chauvanist pig.

Posted by: Brutus on February 26, 2008 12:39 PM



I don't believe that "born gay" thesis. A small number of men are "born gay." The cities weren't flooded with gay men from the college towns because something magically changed about humans. This campaign of hysteria and denunciation led weak men to homosexuality as a way to avoid the evil eye of these crazy women (and their male co-conspirators).
...
You are a damned liar.
...
Rid yourself of this evil hatred of your fellow man. It's disgusting.

Kettle, meet pot.

Posted by: i, squub on February 26, 2008 12:44 PM



PatrickH:

JA, I like you, but you really cannot have read the Sommers piece with any attention at all and then have written that post.

Can you be more specific?

Posted by: JewishAtheist on February 26, 2008 1:16 PM



Oh, for anyone interested in getting a better idea of how much rape is actually being committed in any particular year I can give one piece of advice:

AFAIK, the Rape Rate and the Murder and Violent Crime Rate rise and fall at almost the same exact amount. So, if the Homicide rate in, say, Missouri went down by 10% in the 1990's, then you can assume that the Rape Rate went down by 10% as well. Obviously, this is not scientific.

Also, it does not help with determining exactly how many women were raped, or how many women are not reporting rape. But it does help understand where most rapes are happening and how much they are rising and falling.

Posted by: Ian Lewis on February 26, 2008 1:28 PM



Questions 9 and 10 of the Koss survey certainly appear to ask about actions that would come very close to the legal definition of rape. Why all the fuss?

Posted by: Peter on February 26, 2008 1:34 PM



JA, in your original post you wrote:
8. Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?
It's true that there is some ambiguity in question 8, but I think the idea that a woman was raped even though she doesn't call it rape is a good insight. Compare it to spousal abuse. I guarantee you'll get very different answers to the questions "does your husband ever hit you in anger?" and "are you an abuse victim?"

Sommers goes into great detail about why question 8 is simply unacceptable. She devotes three long paragraphs to the question’s inadequacy, including a long quote from a Berkeley professor about why the question doesn’t work, and to an investigation by an Ohio paper into Koss’s false claims concerning the statutory justification for her phrasing in Q8. Sommers follows this with six more paragraphs on the question of whether or not women are good judges of whether or not they’ve been raped, including quotes from Katha Pollit and Katie Roiphe, two feminists who took opposite sides on the question. (Sommers sides clearly with Roiphe and against Pollit, your side’s representative.) Later, several more paragraphs (I counted 14!) went into some detail about what to make of the assertion that women don’t call it rape even when it is, and concluded that pace you, direct questioning is indeed the most effective way to get accurate figures.

You address none of this. You simply assert that “…if you follow your own link to Sommers's analysis, I think you'd have to agree it [Koss’s method that leads to the one in four figure] is more accurate.” It’s this utterly egregious misrepresentation of virtually the entire body of the Sommers piece that causes me to say that you cannot possibly have read the article with any attention. Otherwise, I’d have to assume you were being deliberately dishonest.

And I like you too much to think that about you.

Posted by: PatrickH on February 26, 2008 2:10 PM



PatrickH:

Thanks for the clarification. I did not intend to imply that Sommers agrees with me -- I just pointed to her piece because it spelled out the questions that Koss used to define "rape."

I will elaborate on why I disagree with the Berkeley professor and with Sommers's critique of Pollit:

[Gilbert] noticed, for example, that Koss and her colleagues counted as victims of rape any respondent who answered "yes" to the question "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?" That opened the door wide to regarding as a rape victim anyone who regretted her liaison of the previous night. If your date mixes a pitcher of margaritas and encourages you to drink with him and you accept a drink, have you been "administered" an intoxicant, and has your judgment been impaired?

Again, I conceded in my original comment that this question is unfortunately ambiguous, but I don't think it's as flawed as Gilbert implies. He appears to ignore the phrase "when you didn't want to." Giving a girl a drink or five and having consensual sex would not fall under this category. It's getting her drunk and having sex with her against her will that the question is asking about.

Pollitt's analogy is faulty, however. If Jane has ugly financial dealings with Tom and an expert explains to Jane that Tom has defrauded her, then Jane usually thanks the expert for having enlightened her about the legal facts. To make her case, Pollitt would have to show that the rape victims who were unaware that they were raped would accept Koss's judgment that they really were. But that has not been shown; Koss did not enlighten the women she counts as rape victims, and they did not say "now that you explain it, we can see we were."

This is a bad argument (and I did address this above) because it ignores something we know to be true -- victims of abuse will often deny being victims of abuse. Ask a battered wife if her husband abuses her, and there's a good chance she'll say no. Even if she admits that he hits her, she's likely to make excuses for him or say that it was her fault. Does this mean that she wasn't abused? Similarly, if a woman admits that she had sex with a man while impaired even though she didn't want to but does not agree that she had been "raped," is it so far-fetched to disagree with her analysis?

Posted by: JewishAtheist on February 26, 2008 2:31 PM



"Political Correctness (or Sexual Correctness) never existed, isn't it? Of course it did."

Why past tense?

It is alive and well.

Posted by: Lexington Green on February 26, 2008 2:54 PM



"Questions 9 and 10 of the Koss survey certainly appear to ask about actions that would come very close to the legal definition of rape. Why all the fuss?"

I can not speak for others, but why be indirect when you can easily be direct?

For instance, if the women were asked both directly and indirectly if they were raped and the researchers got the same answer, then the issue would be put to bed; they had been raped.

But, if they got a different answer to the indirect question (than the direct question), then that would certainly be interesting.

Why does the answer to the indirect question(s) imply rape but the answer to the direct question(s) imply that she wasn't rape?

Is it because the victim is blaming herself and needs a more indirect route to arrive at the truth? Does she feel that she was not raped, but that she was, in some way, forced?

These are very different things.

One small anecdote from my life:
I remained good friends with an ex-girlfriend and we would talk all the time. After we broke up she told me that it was my fault that she did not hang out with her friends (more) during our relationship.

I brought up the fact that I not only encouraged her to spend more time with her friends during our relationship, but actually tried to physically force her to do so. She agreed that this did happen. So, I asked, how could it be my fault?

Because it was I that made her want to spend time with me and not her friends, therefore, it was my fault and not hers.

She was being completely serious.

Even though I have similar stories from other ex's and other girls, this is obviously a small sample size.

However, IMO, this is common for women. To find a way to not blame themselves.

(I hope no one here is thinking that I am some misogynist...I have got stories about my guy friends.)

Posted by: Ian Lewis on February 26, 2008 3:01 PM



Peter:
Question 8 generates a lot of the hits that make up the one in four figure. It's question 8 that is the focus of Sommers's critique. Hence the fuss.

Posted by: PatrickH on February 26, 2008 3:02 PM



Lemme get this straight. A bunch of guys are sitting around dismissing rape figures and blaming feminists for everything up to and including homosexuality. I wonder whether it is even worth posting a response. I'd be very interested in reading what the women in your lives have to say about this post and the comments here.

The Daughter Unit, at the age of 25, knows of at least four friends who have been raped. Most were of the rohypnol Mickey Finn variety. You know, they were having a beer in public with someone they knew casually (the little sluts were asking for it, right?), then finding themselves waking up somewhere with strange semen leaking from one bruised orifice or another. While my daughter tried to get each of them to go to a hospital, have a rape kit done and call the police to the best of her knowledge none of them did. They were too ashamed, afraid of their parents' reactions, intimidated by the idea of going to the police, fearful of having to go to court, unwilling to put up with the b*****t comments of guys they know (like some of those posting here) about whether it was REALLY rape ... in short, the usual. And yeah, my story is also only anecdotal so you can ignore it and attack me as you did JA. It must make you so proud to be such manly men.

Sorry for the intemperate tone, but ST really got me going. That boy needs a good shrink.

Posted by: Chris White on February 26, 2008 4:14 PM



Chris, did you read the linked article on rohypnol? It is fascinating.

Posted by: Ian Lewis on February 26, 2008 5:48 PM



"if a woman admits that she had sex with a man while impaired even though she didn't want to but does not agree that she had been "raped," is it so far-fetched to disagree with her analysis?"

Is it far-fetched? Well, if she gives any implication that she was raped, in any indirect manner, than "No, it is not far-fetched".

But I don't think that get's to the heart of the matter. That being, how bogus is that 1 in 4 number (if at all)? And, if it is bogus, how did we get that number in the first place?

So, let's assume that the victim is blaming herself. And, so, when asked this question,

"Where you raped?"

She would answer, "No."

But, what about this question, "Where you forced to have sex"?

or, "Do you believe that you were drugged?" (Which gets back to that linked article.)

But when you start using the kind of language you see in questions 9 and 10, I think it becomes much too easy for a girl who was not raped to say, "Yes, I felt like I had sex when I did not want to.".

Posted by: Ian Lewis on February 26, 2008 5:58 PM



JA,

Thanks for the temperate response (ST and CW seem to feed off one another, alas, so your calm tone comes as quite the relief). I won't continue the discussion beyond this point, except to mention something in your last post that could use clarification:

You are confusing "even though she didn't want to" with "against her will". Desire and will are two different things. I've had sex when I didn't want to (at all, I mean I was just not attracted to the women involved, and I had to be fairly drunk no less!), and yet I obviously wasn't raped. Being cajoled, guilt-tripped or just plain smooth-talked into sex is not rape. Being "plied with alcohol" is not a reason to think rape has occurred--fer Chrissakes, I've been plied with alcohol by women and men for sexual purposes, and I don't think rape was intended or threatened.

Regret over having sex, reluctance to have sex but doing it anyway...this stuff happens all the time. It's not rape, and Chris White does no one any good by bringing up rohypnol cases. Read the friggin' article, Chris. Gawd!

Posted by: PatrickH on February 26, 2008 6:25 PM



"A bunch of guys are sitting around dismissing rape figures and blaming feminists for everything up to and including homosexuality."

I see more of critique of rape figures, with some very substantive arguments to back it up. And only one poster blamed feminists for homosexuality. So why so touchy?

This is the essence of the complaint against PC - we're not even supposed to DARE to question the claims of the PC crowd. If you do you're a trogloditic caveman.

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on February 26, 2008 6:28 PM



Why so touchy? The tone and content of certain comments absolutely pushes my buttons. Being the father of a daughter in her mid-twenties when the topic is campus and date rape it comes with the territory. For some of us the topic is more than an abstract discussion about political correctness.

I initially missed the link to the rohypnol article and apologize for not having read it before making my original comment. Okay, based on a study in the UK which may or may not correlate exactly to the situation here in the US, maybe most of the women who claim to have had their drinks spiked were actually engaged in binge drinking. So, maybe my daughter's friends drank to the poiint of experiencing a blackout before their experiences. If so, were they able to give informed consent to having sex? Or is that too politically correct a question to ask? Should it only be considered rape if the victim can prove a credible fear of death or other grave bodily harm? I see no bright line that separates the alcohol fueled seduction from the rape of a woman too drunk to effectively resist. Either there is a line to be crossed, however fuzzy, or you accept one of two absolutes, neither of which seems very sensible. The one being dismissed here is the "it's always rape' absolute. The other absolute is 'if she's drunk it can't be rape' which is also pretty indefensible.

There are any number of studies that seek to estimate various things for which no clear data exists. There are, for example, widely divergent estimates for civilian casualties in Iraq. Certainly one's political views will lead them to accept or reject a particular estimate more easily than another.

For the record, the one in four women raped has always seemed high to me and the ambiguity of certain of the questions used in the study further adds to my sense that they were interpreted in a way that inflated the rape figures. How does it change the discussion if we use instead the figures from the National Women’s Study (NWS) and the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS)? Data from these studies indicate that approximately 13.4% of adult women in the United States have been victims of completed forcible rape. Does a one in nine rather than one in four figure make enough of a difference to then dismiss the seriousness and undue frequency of these incidents?

Posted by: Chris White on February 26, 2008 9:03 PM



So, maybe my daughter's friends drank to the point of experiencing a blackout before their experiences. If so, were they able to give informed consent to having sex? ... Should it only be considered rape if the victim can prove a credible fear of death or other grave bodily harm?

Again, not all of the women in that study were binge drinking or using drugs. Most were, but not all. But all were wrong about being "roofied".

If so, were they able to give informed consent to having sex?

Let's say they couldn't give a sober, informed consent to the question: "Do you want to have sex?"

But, what if they were never asked. What if the guy had been drinking and drugging as well. And, well, in their drunken stupor, they started fooling around. Her inhibitions were lowered, as were his. And, they had sex. He never asked. She never asked. Is it rape? I think that the answer would be "No".

Next question: How is she going to react the next day? How would she react to those questions being asked?

Data from these studies indicate that approximately 13.4% of adult women in the United States have been victims of completed forcible rape. Does a one in nine rather than one in four figure make enough of a difference to then dismiss the seriousness and undue frequency of these incidents?

Yes, it does make a difference. Because so many of those rapes are being committed in Camden, NJ and Gary, IN and the South Bronx and other High Crime places.

They are not, generally, being committed at Yale and Harvard. But, that was the implication. That these intelligent women needed to be scared of their privileged brothers, because, "ONE IN FOUR! ONE IN FOUR!".

Now, I am not dismissing the importance of the 1 in 9 women that are being raped, but, we should probably shift our focus away from Harvard Poli Sci majors that have a bag full of Roofies to the Thug in the 'Hood where these crimes are most often taking place.

Should we have NO focus on your average College Campus? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.

But we should get real. But we can not get real until PC and Federally Funded Bullsh*t surveys die an ugly death.

The sooner people STOP yelling Rapist or Racist or Sexist or whatever at people who are trying to have "an Open Dialogue" the sooner we can start fixing these problems.

Posted by: Ian Lewis on February 26, 2008 11:47 PM



The anthology of feminist rants to which Michael linked in his penultimate paragraph is actually pretty tame. A wilder collection can be found in Daniel Amnéus's 1979 opus "Back to Patriarchy", in a chapter called "The Fairyland File". In a later book, "The Garbage Generation", he ascribes the rise in rape rates to the very breakdown of the patriarchy the feminists opposed.

Posted by: Reg Cæsar on February 27, 2008 12:16 AM



A man doses a woman with roofies to make her incapable of saying "No" or physically resisting intercourse. If he then has sex with her, it's rape, just as much as if he put a gun to her head. A Harvard man who does this is more dangerous than a Thug in the 'Hood, because he's far more likely to achieve a position of power and trust.

It can be even worse. Moslem men in Britain have been known (allegedly) to use Rohypnol on Indo-British college girls. They find a girl who is "rebellious" and willing to date seemingly congenial non-Indians. After a couple of innocuous dates, the Rohypnol goes in, and the girl is gang-raped, on video. Afterwards, she's told to convert to Islam or her family will see the video.

Rohypnol is not merely an intoxicant: it renders the recipient effectively unconscious. No one ever takes it for fun. Those who use it to get sex are rapists.

Hang 'em all.

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on February 27, 2008 1:20 AM



Rich, I am assuming that you did not read the linked article on Rohypnol. I was kidding when I refered to the Harvard kid with a bag full of roofies.

Posted by: Ian Lewis on February 27, 2008 8:45 AM



"The Daughter Unit, at the age of 25, knows of at least four friends who have been raped."

Chris, you are a complete fool.

I've raised two daughters, both independent, both with advanced degrees.

During the era they attended college, the feminazis deified women who claimed to have been raped. In Woodstock, every certifiably leftist woman claims to have been sexually abused and raped. I no longer believe these claims unless they are supported by a conviction.

You aren't motivated by concern by women, Chris, in these reckless accusations against other men. You are motivated by jealousy and hatred. I've met plenty like you.

These Reichstag Fire tactics have become the standard fare of the Stalinist left. The feminazis wanted money and institutional power to fund their hate campaign against men. There are plenty of vicious fools like Chris around who buy into these tactics.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on February 27, 2008 9:59 AM



This has been such an excruciatingly serious post that I hesitate to bring anything resembling humor into it, but here I go:

My favorite Clint Eastwood movie is "Unforgiven," which deals precisely in the themes of this post. If you haven't seen it, I suggest that you do.

The movie is a great story, and it is hilarious in a black comic way. Unforgiven is a tremendous statement of just how stupid and brutal men can be when they've been manipulated into protecting some woman's honor. The whores in the movie keenly understand this stupidity and play it for all they can get.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on February 27, 2008 11:20 AM



Okay, female here, would like to inject a couple of points into the discussion:

1) the reason the 1 in 4 number is under discussion is because of its implications, which may be much worse than reality. If I were to survey my group of female friend from college— who are NOT the types to be shy about such things— I'd come up with a big zero for college-era rape. (We were enough in each others' back pockets that we would have noticed the depression and associated causes that come with hiding rape; I make no claim to outside that time period but would suspect not.) This might have been entirely reversed had I hung out with a different type of crowd. But those pushing the "1 in 4" number very specifically state that it's 1 in 4 of the people you know.

2) Most rapes happen from people you know. So focusing on parties and strangers kind of misses the point; a better tactic is one my high school used, which is to train girls about making decisions before you end up in uncertain situations, and to know what you do and do not want. A lot of boyfriend rapes happen because the girl is wavering between whether this is something she wants or not, and the ambiguity of the situation does nothing to help the cases of those who are definitely raped.

3) The major problem, as I see it, with the pushing of the rape culture is that it comes with added assumptions, including the one where all men are assumed to be predators. One male friend that I had was required by his dorm (along with every other male) to attend an "anti-violence" seminar that started with the assumption that all males were predators and went downhill from there. It was demeaning and annoying, and I don't blame him for being upset. (This was the sort of guy I would trust to keep me safe if he found me at a party, drugged to the gills. And he was far from the only one I knew.) The automatic assumption that all men are predators unless specifically conditioned otherwise is a dangerous one, stereotyping at its worst.

Posted by: B. Durbin on March 1, 2008 9:50 PM






Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:



Remember your info?