Quote (Master_Zappy @ Feb 2 2016 01:28am)
Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?
Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force to make you?
Have you had sexual acts when you didn’t want to because a man threatened to use some degree of physical force to make you?
The trouble is, many of the women the survey counted as “victims” did not actually feel that they had been raped, especially not the entire third of the alleged “victims” that continued to have a consensual sexual relationship with their supposed attacker. Others that had consensual one-night-stands that they later regretted were also counted as “victims”. -->
http://aspiringeconomist.com/index.php/2009/09/11/rape-statistics-1-in-4/Koss & Oros SES-survey is from 1982 (Koss & Oros - Sexual Experiences Survey: A Research Instrument Investigating Sexual Aggression and Victimization.), yes. what interests me is that the article seems to speak about a 1982 study when the famous Koss study was in fact published in 1987. How can such a glaring error escape the author of the article? Not only that, but that is actually not all that is in the 1982 SES either! The same pattern of either accidental or deliberate misunderstanding seems to repeat from article to article.
Quote (Koss @ Gidycz, Wisniewski)
All data were obtained via a self-report questionnaire titled, "National Survey of Inter-Gender Relationships." (This title was selected to be neutral and to avoid the word "sex" so that partici-pants would not prejudge the content.) The questionnaire consisted of approximately 330 questions divided into seven sections
Emphasis mine. Of those only a select number were of course related to rape and/or sexual assault, those who responded positively to them were then given follow-up questions with which to map the nature of the sexual victimisation.
Of course this doesn't account for other studies on the subject either, which are a plenty and which your articles don't seem to mention.
What I find the most baffling is that even though some of these articles that you linked manage to tell us that in the initial surveying a wide range of questions is used, there seems to be no mention whatsoever of the follow-up questions that are used to categorise whether sexual assault has in fact happened. One of the advantages of the Koss’ surveys is that they did use the legal standards of rape in measuring the prevalence of rape - which your articles neglect to mention. While Koss’ study does indeed include an amount of questions that are intended to scope the prevalence of sexual victimization among women in general (such as those mentioned in your articles - forceful kissing/fondling, etc.), those are
explicitly not counted in when Koss writes about the prevalence of rape, so your conflation of all victims and rape victims (as in those who met the legal criteria of rape) betrays either a blatant lack of knowledge or blatant dishonesty - neither of which are very good.
To quote from Fisher and Cullen’s review of rape survey methodology and design
"Koss and Gidycz (1985) employed three separate questions to measure rape. Each question specifies a different experience that, according to the law at this time, constituted a rape. They also utilized multiple questions to measure the three other types of sexual victimization. Once again, each question presents a different description of the experience to the respondent”
"This distinction is important. In addition to providing explicit definitions of critical terms, this form of questioning potentially minimizes the measurement error that may occur because of a discrepancy between the investigator’s and the respondent’s classification of a victimization incident. What the investigator labels as rape and what the respondent labels as rape may differ considerably (see Fisher and Cullen 1999; Koss 1988). For example, Koss reports that nearly three-fourths of college women who met the legal definition for rape failed to use this term as the label for their experiences.“
and
“Using these scoring procedures, the respondents were classified according to the highest degree of sexual victimizationthat they reported. Two of the types of sexual victimization on the SES are criminal—completed rape and attempted rape—and two are not—sexual coercion and sexual contact. By including all of these types of sexual victimization,they broadened the definition of sexual victimization to include experiences that may not be criminal but nonetheless victimize women”
Quote (Master_Zappy @ Feb 2 2016 01:28am)
RAINN has officially dismantled feminist rape culture hysteria.
this is not true and it is not what was said in the article. Lisak's studies also
describe how serial rapists repeatedly get away with their crimes ! They're kind of important here.
Quote (Master_Zappy @ Feb 2 2016 03:52am)
asserted opinion, no argument, no numbers to back up a view point and blatently ignore the evidence in front of their face.
In the unlikely case that you're actually interested in the subject:
For more information on the prevalence of rape in general, see CDC's "Sexual Violence: Facts at a Glance", US dept. of Justice's "The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study", "Rape and Sexual Assault Victimization Among College-Age Females, 1995–2013" and "Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women"
For general information on the various surveys used (including those of Koss), their methodology and so on, see Fisher & Cullen's "Measuring the Sexual Victimization of Women: Evolution, Current Controversies, and Future Research" and Fisher's "Measuring Rape Against Women: The Significance of Survey Questions".
For insight on how rape and rapists work, see Lisak's "Why Rapists Run Free", "Understanding the Predatory Nature of Sexual Violence" and "Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists".
This post was edited by Gastly on Feb 2 2016 05:33am