The community of the wrongly accused has a new home--click the picture above to join us.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

If rape were as rampant as activists claim, then rape shouldn't be a crime

The headline got your attention, didn't it?  We'll get to that, but first things first. 

How did rape supposedly become rampant?

Twenty years ago, the federal Bureau of Justice statistics estimated that .05 percent of women had been raped.  But rape activists insisted this had to be too low, and in connection with the passage of VAWA, some testified in Congressional to change the laws to treat rape far more seriously. 

One such activist testified that the real percentage of women raped was more than 25 percent.  Please sit down before I tell you who it was:  it was Mary Koss.  Koss, many readers know, was instrumental in molding the perception that rape is rampant.  Her landmark study that 27% percent of all American women have been raped has been discredited by non-feminist writers, see here and here.

The Koss Report

It is beyond question that the Koss report was fatally flawed. Among other things, 73 percent of the women whom Koss characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped.  But thankfully, those women had Mary Koss to tell them they were victims as they might have gone through their entire lives not knowing it.  More important, forty-nine percent of the women Koss says were sexually assaulted labeled the experience a "miscommunication." Others said it wasn't a crime.

But the "miscommunication" label alone is an insurmountable problem for declaring that the women were raped. It raises serious questions about whether there was an absence of "consent," which does not refer to an accuser's subjective or secret desires, whims, or beliefs, but to her outward manifestations of willingness to engage in sexual relations. If a person in the position of the male reasonably understands there was consent, there can be no rape (some states credit his belief subjective).  The Koss and similar surveys are invalid because they fail to assess whether the female's conduct or verbal expressions were reasonably understood by the male as consent. Period. End of story. Young women sometimes feel used and sometimes really don't want to have sex, and sometimes they transmogrify those angry or regretful feelings into a belief that they were raped.   But to find out if a rape actually occurred, you'd need to actually look at each alleged rape and survey both the female and the male involved.  In fact, only one in 12 college men responding to the same Koss survey admitted committing acts that met the legal definition of rape or attempted rape. We never hear about the males who responded to the Koss report.  Is it not the height of sexism to assume that only women are trustworthy in rape surveys?

The Gospel of rampant rape is institutionalized

But fatally flawed or no, in 1990, the author of that report, Mary Koss, testified as an expert before a committee chaired by then-Senator Biden.

Moreover, the thoroughly debunked canard that only two percent of all rape claims are false was used to justify the passage of VAWA. Pub. L. 102-199, S. Rep. 102-197 n.48 (Oct. 29, 1991). To understand the two percent canard, see, e.g., E. Greer, The Truth Behind Legal Dominance Feminism's 'Two Percent False Rape Claim' Figure, 33 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 947, a scholarly law review article that painstakingly traced the two percent canard to its unreliable source. See also "Until Proven Innocent," the widely praised (praised even by the New York Times, which the book skewers, as well as almost every other major U.S. news source) study of the Duke Lacrosse non-rape case. Authors Stuart Taylor and Professor K.C. Johnson explain that "[t]he standard assertion by feminists that only 2 percent" or sexual assault claims "are false, which traces to Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book 'Against Our Will,' is without empirical foundation and belied by a wealth of empirical data." (Page 374.)

Following that, the Gospel of rampant rape was institutionalized.  Numbers are concocted to reach a pre-determined outcome that is the product of an ideological agenda.  So, today, organizations such as NOW and RAINN rely on the U.S Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey (see here) to insist that rape is rampant and largely underreported.  What those organizations do not publicize is that this survey, conducted by in-person and telephone interviews, defines rape as follows: "Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. . . . Includes attempted rapes . . . Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape." (Emphasis supplied.)  You need to scroll to page 131 out of 133 to find that definition.  Putting aside other problems with the definition, "psychological coercion," of course, can mean all manner of things, including "I'll take your mother to the doctors tomorrow if you make love to me tonight," and that is not rape.

These faulty, politicized surveys are used because real crime stats supposedly can't be relied on due to the alleged underreporting of rape. Underreporting is a handy, all-purpose word to discredit any suggestion that rape is rare. But a recent law review article in the New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement explained that the politicization of rape renders it impossible to discern whether underreporting even exists, much less the extent of it. J. Fennel, Punishment by Another Name: The Inherent Overreaching in Sexually Dangerous Person Commitments 35 N.E. J. on Crim. & Civ. Con. 37, 49-51 (2009).

If rape were that rampant, it shouldn't be a crime

What can aptly be called the sexual grievance industry tells us that one-in-four women in their lifetimes are victims of rape or attempted rape. Or is it one-in-three? Or is it one-in-four college women? Or is it one-in-four Freshmen college women before Thanksgiving break? Or is it one-in-six women in general? Or is it one-in-seven women in general? Pick a single digit number and you'll find some "support" for it among the politicized purveyors of misandry. It doesn't seem to bother these zealots that they can't even get their stories straight. (Nor do they seem to notice that that there is one hell of a difference between one-in-three women overall, one-in-four college women before Thanksgiving of Freshman year, and one-in-seven women overall.) And when you try to reconcile their claims about underreporting with the above numbers, which is also a moving target, your head starts to spin.

The point is, if any these people were correct, every family would likely have at least one rapist (and perhaps multiple rapists) and likely double that number of rape victims.  If we punished all the males who committed this crime, we couldn't build enough jails in a nation that is already the prison capital of the world.  Colleges and the military would be almost entirely female because rapists skew young.  The economy would be devastated because there wouldn't be enough men to do the jobs men do. 

The implications are mind-boggling.  The only solution, aside from outlawing maleness (save it, ladies -- that isn't going to happen) would be to surrender and declare most forms of alleged "rape" a natural human activity that ought not be illegal.  Absurd?  No more absurd than locking up for many, many years huge percentages of the teen and twenty-something male population.  After all, all manner of physically invasive acts inflicted on others are legal precisely because they are widely accepted.  Circumcision of infant boys -- which does cause pain, and blood, and sometimes death -- is still widely practiced in the United States. Corporal punishment is also allowed in most places, although the majority of states have outlawed it in schools. If rape were that common -- despite the avalanche of reforms to try to curb it over the past 30 years -- then the only solution is to throw up our hands and surrender to it.

But, you see, that's not reality.  Let's get this straight: the politicized, fear-mongering numbers suggesting rape is rampant insult our intelligence and slander an entire gender. Rape is still too common, but two points are self-evident: (1) Rape is not anywhere near as rampant as sexual assault activists insist; and (2) rape is properly classified as a crime.  To deny either assertion is nutty.

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

1 in 3, or 1 in 7? well according to a quote by, catherine mckinnon the number of women raped in their life time is one out of every one woman

Archivist said...

Good point. Because of the gendered power differential, all heterosexual sex must be deemed nonconsensual and invasive. So every male who has sex with a woman needs to go to prison for twenty years or so.

Dr. Snark said...

I'm glad you mentioned circumcision. Some MRAs lately have been dismissing it as a concern. Granted, in many cases, circumcised men can have sexually normal and fulfilling lives; but that by no means makes it excusable. Baby boys are welcomed into this world by having their most private parts cut into and removed. That's absolutely sick, and really sets the precedent for what men are expected to go through for the rest of their lives.

Did you know that foreskins are then used for beauty products for women? I kid you not.

Baby boys' genitals are assaulted and mutilated, so that more beauty products are accessible for women.

Sick.

Especially given a commentary by some rabid feminist I once saw, stating that anyone who finds circumcision (male genital mutilation) offensive is a 'misogynist' because female genital mutilation is so much worse. Yes, objecting to mutilating the genitals of baby boys is now hatred of women.

If I had my way, feminism would be a felony.

Archivist said...

If circumcision were not routine here, I wonder if it would be outlawed? They get away with it because babies can only cry, not file suit, and because men who are cut don't remember it (although I swear I had a flashback one night when I saw a particularly sharp steak knife in a restaurant).

And, yes, foreskins are used in the beauty industry. And for skin grafts. One woman I know had a graft from a foreskin to her eyelid. Now she's cockeyed.

Not to make light of it, because I wish it were outlawed.

Dr. Snark said...

"Now she's cockeyed."

HA!

Dr. Snark said...

I see how it's misogynistic in the eyes of a feminist, though.

If we don't stop cutting up little boys' genitals, where will women get their absolutely essential beauty products?

Obviously it's misogynistic to deny women their 'right to feel sexy omg.' The right to bodily autonomy only applies to women, men don't need such rights because they run the world - even newborn babies who can't defend themselves against brutal attacks against their genitals.

Anonymous said...

Great piece. They will never get most people behind their agenda so long as they lie and paint maleness as evil.

Archivist said...

Right, anon. They are turning a lot of people off with their hysterics. Worse, their movement has serious credibility problems. But in their defense, nobody challenged them on these things until the past several years when the Internet exposed a ton of guys to their hateful thinking. Most men didn't know this stuff existed, at least to a great extent.

Barry Deutsch said...

In fact, only one in 12 college men responding to the same Koss survey admitted committing acts that met the legal definition of rape or attempted rape. We never hear about the males who responded to the Koss report. Is it not the height of sexism to assume that only women are trustworthy in rape surveys?

Actually, I think the assumption is that the large majority of men never commit rape, but the minority of men who rape include men who rape multiple times.

Dr. Snark said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1285477/Unemployed-women-given-1-000-makeovers-help-solvent-husband.html

"Women on the dole are being offered a £1,150 fashion and beauty makeover and membership to a dating agency to help them find a wealthy husband.

Dutch jobseekers are being given a new hairstyle and outfit and tips from a lifecoach on how to attract a new partner.

The scheme has been slammed by local politicians who criticised the deal as unethical and a waste of taxpayers money."

Feminism!

Archivist said...

This document's discussion of repeat rapists strikes me as being in the ballpark of reasonableness: two rapes per rapist. Repeat Offending, see page 11 This, of course, deals with acquaintance rape, which seems to be the only rape the activists care much about (until the recent anonymity debate in the UK, that is). I've been trying to find real support for the latest "serial rapist" craze, which seems to attribute Jeffrey Dahmer-like numbers to the typical rapist, but like everything else in this area, trying to pin down even an accurate range of numbers is like trying to bottle fog.

In any event, if we really want to help our young people, we would all do well to ditch the gender divisive numbers games and start focusing on the real problem. The real problem, based on my experience and speaking with counsel at different colleges, is a three-prong perfect storm: a combination of alcohol (counsel at one of the biggest campuses in America tells me that the "girls drink more than the boys now" -- I don't buy that, but women do get drunk faster on average because they generally have less body mass); and that college guys are -- and I know I'm going to attacked for this -- sexually immature, primarily because their sex drives are through the roof; and college women, on the other hand, are conflicted -- despite all their liberation, they are still looking to cement relationships, and they know that the guy wants sex, so they plow ahead, sometimes reluctantly. (I had a case where that very thing happened.) It's not rape, but it's not mature, or healthy, on any level, on anyone's part. We need to stop the gender finger pointing and start talking about sexual maturity -- which means, primarily, better communication on both ends.

Dr. Snark said...

"(counsel at one of the biggest campuses in America tells me that the "girls drink more than the boys now" -- I don't buy that, but women do get drunk faster on average because they generally have less body mass)"

Believe it. I was at university not too long ago, I know it's in the UK, but that seems easily that it's true.

Archivist said...

Dr. Snark, I should have made clear I was only guessing. I haven't been in college for a long time, so I am sure I am transposing my experience on a culture I don't know first-hand. By the way, the guy who told me this is an uber-liberal who privately agrees with me that the pendulum on false rape claims has swung too far.

To connect the dots on my last thought: if you have two rapes for every rapist, given the numbers the activists have posited (which are staggering), that means an awful lot of rapists, and a gender that is worse than flawed. That just doesn't match my experience or anything I've read.

My ultimate question to the activists would be, did you really need to construct numbers from the air to get the rape shield laws and other reforms passed? My guess is, no.

Anonymous said...

"In fact, only one in 12 college men responding to the same Koss survey admitted committing acts that met the legal definition of rape or attempted rape."

Does anyone have a source or any more information about that?

Also, Koss was wrong about what she considered, or perhaps pretended, to be the legal definitions of rape and attempted rape.

Archivist said...

Anon, I don't have my sources here but you are correct. These studies didn't concern themselves with legal definitions. The big problem is the one I pointed out in my post -- it's the problem for all these surveys. It's one thing for someone to say, "I was raped." Maybe she/he was. But to know that, we need to know if the alleged rapist reasonably understood the accuser's outward manifestations evinced consent (an agreement, a willingness to have sex). That's the bottom line here.

Look, for violent stranger rape, this isn't the issue. This becomes an issue where two tipsy college students engaging in sex play have intercourse and the next day, it's clear, at least to one of them, what a dumb idea it was. What was said, exactly, is often murky even to them, so how in the hell do we expect a jury to untangle that mess? And we're going to destroy a boy over something that's not clear? Isn't the better solution to educate these kids in advance so they understand where the other is coming from? That she feels more regret after the fact; that guys have a sex drive that (sorry feminists) dwarfs women's at that age? You know, in this day and age, in the hook-up culture, both parties need to take responsibility, but please don't take what I'm saying to mean that guys should do whatever their penises tell them. I think we need to acknowledge that these situations can be a mess, and it's better for everybody to avoid these situations going in.

I swear to you I could devise a better better "sexual health" presentation for incoming freshmen than what's being done.

Anonymous said...

"This, of course, deals with acquaintance rape, which seems to be the only rape the activists care much about"

That's because the purpose of their theory -- that "normal" men will commit rape just to get sex -- is to vilify men, not prevent violent crime. Like almost all other criminals, rapists do not want to be identified to keep from being caught. An actual rapist is unlikely to rape an acquaintance for the same reason a burglar is unlikely to leave a note with his name and address.

"I've been trying to find real support for the latest "serial rapist" craze, which seems to attribute Jeffrey Dahmer-like numbers to the typical rapist, but like everything else in this area, trying to pin down even an accurate range of numbers is like trying to bottle fog."

I understand your frustration. Please let us know what you find, but as far as I know, it has not been specifically researched in decades, ever since feminists hijacked the issue. However, the established theory that most rapists are serial rapists is not incongruent with recent justice statistics.

In general, the position of most feminist literature and rape advocacy websites is that most rapists are not serial rapists. That rape is something rare committed by a few bad apples doesn't suit their political agenda. With a few exceptions, it seems we are only now hearing from feminists about serial rapists in response to the U.K. anonymity law.

Regardless, those who rape are likely to commit more rape for the same reasons they did it the first time. Sexual predators are predatory by nature, and what causes a rapist to rape isn't going to apply to only one victim.

Anonymous said...

"These studies didn't concern themselves with legal definitions."

Which brings up another point. How can feminists use these "studies" to determined how much rape is unreported, when legally, there was no crime to report?

Archivist said...

Anon at 3:51: That's just it.

Again, even for rape claims that ARE reported, it is impossible to say whether they are valid beyond a certain, rather small, percentage. That doesn't mean they are false. But a hell of a lot fall in a vast middle area where the facts are murky even to the participants.

So I have two thoughts on that: (1) we shouldn't destroy young men's lives on doubtful claims by splashing their names all over the paper (rape is a claim that sticks, and it stinks, and it's almost impossible to disprove), and (2) we ought to try to counsel people not to put themselves in these situations because -- again -- they are a mess. It would be better for everyone if we veered away from relying on the courts to straighten out messes like that.

Archivist said...

Anon at 3:45: what you say makes a lot of sense. Rape is a very bad thing, and it makes sense that only people who think like criminals do it.

I think the problem has been that the sexual grievance industry saw college campuses as fertile ground for reluctant or conflicted sex, so they tried to paint college guys looking for sexual gratification as "rapists" when, in fact, few college guys would ever hurt a girl intentionally. There is a financial interest in fomenting rape hysteria, and nowhere is this more evident than on college campuses.

Anonymous said...

This post is extremely informative. I was amazed to learn that 20 years ago only 0.5% of women were considered rape victims. I believe this statistic is absolutely accurate more so now and especially in the U.S. Here is why:

I honestly believe that rape is rare even in the highly traditional and patriarchal Muslim/African culture I come from and where the state apparatus (and hence the police and courts) is very weak and female unfriendly.

I simply do not know of any woman who has been forced into sex by a violent man, and believe me, believe me I have talked to a lot of women.

What does exist and is not uncommon is young men convincing young unmarried women (always virgins) to have sex with them by use of deceit -such as by saying they love them and plan to marry them when they have no intention of doing so. Should the parents find out-usually because the the girl becomes pregnant- the parents and courts force the boy to marry the pregnant girl to restore her "honor" and ensure the child is not born a "bastard". Western feminists wrongly interpret these situations to mean that these women have been forced to marry their rapists. One can argue that marriage is not an ideal solution for the women in these situations, but they are not marrying a rapist.

Traditional cultures do not consider dishonorable oversexed boys as criminal rapists.

Most of the the worst case scenarios I know off are older men who abuse their positions of power (employer, teacher) for gaining sex either by blackmail ("I could fire you") or bribes ("I will give you a good grade"). Even in these kind of disgraceful situations, the vast majority of women refuse to submit-sometimes with dire consequences such as dropping out from a class.


There is no question that there are SOME men who use unethical (but non-violent) methods) to have sex with women. Unlike radical feminism, traditional cultures have always recognized this problem and tried to address it (not always successfully) without demonizing the entire male gender.

I have had many honest discussions with many women from my country, both young and old about our problems of which there are many And still, I have yet to come across ONE woman who said she is a victim of completed rape-not ONE.

So, yeah, 0.5% sounds just about right.

Zee

Anonymous said...

I mean 0.05% not 0.5%

Zee

ClarenceComments said...

This is rather sad.

Archivist, I thought you knew better.

Haven't I linked you to the Koss Survey before?
Daran at Feminist Critics read and posted the whole thing. The questions she asked DID INDEED contain the legal definition of rape in the state of Michigan (off the top of my head that's the state) and it is true that some women answered "yes" to being legally raped, and yet weren't aware of it.

I've been following this blog since you started it and I've done various things like sign that petition for the anonymity of rape defendents. But it does our cause no good if we repeat misinformation ourselves. Heather McDonald was wrong about the Koss survey. That she is right overall, that we are right overall , won't matter if someone bothers to do what Daran did and sees that are misrepresenting Koss.

Do you want the link? I assure you can find this by simply going to the Feminist Critics blog and searching for Koss in the search box.

Archivist said...

Don't have time to elaborate, but the full explanation would largely repeat what I just said. I am familiar with the Koss report, and have a copy. She relied on the statutory definition of rape from Ohio, which was fairly standard back then and doesn't answer the pertinent legal question which is a common law concept. If 49 percent of the women who supposedly were "raped" said they weren't raped because there may have been a miscommunication, that raises the question as to whether the "rapists" understood the "victims" did not consent. The point is that the presence or absence of consent is legally judged from the male's perspective, so if the "VICTIMS" themselves thought the "rapists" may not have understood the "victims'" true intentions, we can't be sure any of those incidents were rape. I suspect that Ohio, at that time, had a subjective standard whereby the male's actual understanding (even if it wasn't reasonable) was credited, so that makes it even more problematic. But objective or subjective, it doesn't matter.

Archivist said...

Zee, awesome comment.

Archivist said...

P.S. Clarence, I see what you mean now. Sorry. You are correct that the Koss report did cite the statutory definition of rape (pretty much standard everywhere in key respects), but the point is that it didn't reach the legal question of consent I've referenced. And I suppose that the reason it didn't reach that question was that the "miscommunication" aspect only came up later.

Anonymous said...

Rape hysteria is more about "Empowerment" than it is about protecting women from rape.

Anonymous said...

If rape was as rampant as activists claim, I'd be hearing of at least a thousand rapes per day in the lamestream media.

Anonymous said...

I will throw in my own personal experience living in a very well populated area..my county has over 1 million people in it.

Out of all the people I have ever known I have only had ONE person say they were raped.

It was a girl I was friends with that slept around like it was her job.

My take on it was that she just regretted having sex with him. And this "rape" was not a brutal back ally left for dead type thing...it was a got drunk at a party and messed around with a guy type.

And she had no interest in pressing charges and did not seem to have any ill feelings toward this guy either.

After this incident this girl did not change her behavior at all. She just kept getting drunk and sleeping around.

So in my own world I would say the odds are pretty slim on getting raped.

The one in three BS is unreal.

Anonymous said...

"The questions she asked DID INDEED contain the legal definition of rape in the state of Michigan (off the top of my head that's the state)"

No, Koss 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?" Which is not the legal definition of rape in Ohio, Michigan, or anywhere besides Cloud Cuckoo Land.

While the Ohio statute did include "for the purpose of preventing resistance the offender substantially impairs the other person's judgment or control by administering any drug or intoxicant to the other person", it specifically excluded "situations where a person plies his intended partner with drink or drugs in hopes that lowered inhibition might lead to a liaison." There is a huge difference between opening a bottle of wine, and slipping someone a roofie. And contrary to all the hype, the latter is an extremely rare occurrence.

Further, Koss 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 threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you?" Which is easily subject to misinterpretation. Threats of violence are one thing, but threatening to leave someone or not doing something the other person wants is not rape.

As it's been pointed out, the survey did not ask whether or not these women made it clear that they didn't want to have sex. If "no" means no, then no means "no".

"...being legally raped, and yet weren't aware of it."

Then perhaps I've been legally murdered and I'm unaware of it, and some kid who can see dead people needs to tell me.

Archivist said...

Anon, good points. Anon said: "Further, Koss 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 threatened or used some degree of physical force (twisting your arm, holding you down, etc.) to make you?" Which is easily subject to misinterpretation."

FRS: I might be wrong, but if I recall, that was question 9, which, for me, is the primary problem here. Missionary position sexual intercourse holds women down, by its nature. By failing to consider what was communicated to the male and whether a reasonable person in the male's position would have understood such communication to constitute consent, the report was flawed. And that's the flaw of almost all these reports (aside from questions that are worded to include non-rape -- and you pointed out the alcohol question, which is dead on). This concern was confirmed with the follow-up that revealed that half of the "victims" conceded there might have been a miscommunication. Which begs the question: what the hell was communicated between the parties?

If you want to see how good police go about discerning if there was legal consent, check out the audio of the police interview with the accuser in the Roethlisberger case where the cop flat-out asked her if Ben might have construed her comment to mean only that they shouldn't be having sex in that location, not that they shouldn't be having sex. She didn't give him a staight answer, and I suspect that was an important factor in the decision not to charge Roethlisberger for rape.

I know I keep beating this dead horse, but if we keep our focus on whether would a reasonable person in the male's position would understand there was consent (in some states, it's even a lower standard -- the male's subjective understanding), we will cut through the murkiness in this area. If he reasonably could have construed her communications or conduct as consent, end of case -- no rape. And, you see, when a survey has zero concern with the accuser's outward manifestation os consent or nonconsent, or the effect of those manifestations of consent on the male, it's impossible to discern if there was consent.

Fidelbogen said...

Barry Deutsch said:

"Actually, I think the assumption is that the large majority of men never commit rape, but the minority of men who rape include men who rape multiple times."

Clutching at straws are we, Ampersand? Nibbling at fleas are we, Ampersand? Picking at nits are we, Ampersand?

Something tells me that the non-feminists are gaining ground, and you guys are switching into rear-guard defense mode.

I would love to see you stick around and rip into our discourse by great chunks and mouth-fulls, but I reckon the best you can manage at this point is a hit-and-run flea attack, eh? ;)

Fidelbogen said...

"That's because the purpose of their theory -- that "normal" men will commit rape just to get sex -- is to vilify men, not prevent violent crime."

It's interesting how flexible feminists can be in presenting their "theory" to the world - or rather, morphing the essential structure of it as convenience dictates.

The classic feminist "theory" is NOT that men commit rape to get sex, but to assert patriarchal power over women.

So,it looks like we are dealing with 2 different theories here, with very different implication-sets depending on which of them you ultimately favor.