By Connie Chastain*
There is no epidemic of rape, no rape culture, just as hatred of women is not pervasive in the USA. That's what I believe, based on observable evidence. Rape is a crime, well-defined in most statutes, as are the penalties for it. It is an awful crime and to mythologize it for socio-political purposes is to show little or no sympathy for the actual victims of rape.
Judging by what we can learn from the cases documented on this blog, people who falsely accuse someone of rape (usually a woman accusing a man) do so for extremely selfish reasons, and without regard for (a) truth and (b) the consequences of their lie on the falsely accused, and others.
But "rape culture" is something else entirely. While there's a certain element of selfishness in the victim mentality, rape culture is a construct fabricated for one primary purpose: the stereotyping of both sexes to the advantage of one. Women are victims, men are victimizers. The brutal rapist serving thirty years in a penitentiary is everyman. He differs from the fellow who passes you on the street only because the latter either hasn't had the opportunity yet, or hasn't been caught.
The reason I don't buy into the rape culture is because it engages in the blanket evilization of men, just as its overarching philosophy, feminism, does. That's why there is such resistance in feminist circles to acknowledging anything good about men.
Look at a typical feminist website. The ones that acknowledge this fact--that the vast majority of men are not rapists--are few and far between. Do these feminists not know that most rape laws designed to protect women were written by men, enforced by men, and the crime of rape is largely prosecuted by men? That throughout history, when women were protected from rape, men were doing the protecting?
In the United States, the number of men who rape is probably vanishingly small. I say probably because an actual figure is difficult to pin down with on-line searches. Oh, you can find all kinds of statistics, particularly those expressed as percentages (such-and-such percent of rapists are repeaters, thus-and-so percent knew their victims, etc., etc., etc.).
But if you want to know how many of the 144 million men in the USA are rapists, good luck trying to pin it down. The search for the figure has been so maddening for me, I've thrown in the towel and I'm issuing a challenge to the readers of The False Rape Society. If you know of, or can find, a reasonably reliable web source with this figure, please post it in the comments.
I'm not hopeful you'll have any more luck than I did because true believers in the rape culture aren't interested in realities like data and statistics. My guess is that the number of male rapists is a small fraction of the number of men in the United States and the fraction is not threatening enough to besmirch the vast number of American men who do not rape. Therefore, others ways must be found to besmirch them. One of them -- voila!-- is rape culture, which can encompass whatever a feminists decide to build into it, up to and including, the kitchen sink.
Photo by C. Ward
Well, okay, I'm being a smartaleck. I haven't found a feminist site that includes kitchen sinks as an element of rape culture. But what is included is quite breathtaking. And what it all boils down and adds up to is the slander of men.
Regardless of the talk about empowerment, choice, rights, opportunity for women and other window dressing, ad nauseum, misandry is the heart and soul of feminism, and the motivation behind the rape culture construct.
*Connie is a regular contributor to FRS. Her principal blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/
Posts
95 comments:
I'm not hopeful you'll have any more luck than I did because true believers in the rape culture aren't interested in realities like data and statistics.
***
Why do they need real data and statistics if they can make up their own? And the media believes their made-up numbers.
The media make big profits from those made up numbers also.
In the united states the media would loose billions if they could not trash the lives of men every day.
The Gender/Raunch community/law enforcement alliance constitutes a perversion and is unconstitutional.
When I went to college they told me that women never, ever lie about rape.
Anonymous said...
I'm not hopeful you'll have any more luck than I did because true believers in the rape culture aren't interested in realities like data and statistics.
***
Why do they need real data and statistics if they can make up their own? And the media believes their made-up numbers.
May 22, 2010 12:12:00 AM
One could ask why most, if not all of law enforcement believed their bogus statistics and numbers.
Connie, this is a great piece!!
Rape hysteria has "Empowered" the Gender/Raunch proffessors on college campuses around the country.
The Rape hysteria culture has put the violent, bi-polar, pridefully arrogant lesbian, as the loudest voice on many college campus committees. That is why boys and young hetero-sexual men feel no longer feel comforteable there.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/index.html
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/forcible_rape.html
In 2008, the estimated number of forcible rapes (89,000)—the lowest figure in the last 20 years—decreased 1.6 percent from the 2007 estimate. The estimated volume of rapes in 2008 was 6.4 percent lower than in 2004 and was 0.5 percent below the 1999 level. (See Tables 1 and 1A.)
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_29.html
Total1 14,005,615
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 12,955
Forcible rape 22,584
Robbery 129,403
Aggravated assault 429,969
Burglary 308,479
Larceny-theft 1,266,706
Motor vehicle theft 98,035
Arson 14,125
Violent crime2 594,911
Property crime2 1,687,345
Other assaults 1,298,342
Forgery and counterfeiting 90,127
Fraud 234,199
Embezzlement 21,402
Stolen property; buying, receiving, possessing 111,319
Vandalism 285,012
Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc. 179,661
Prostitution and commercialized vice 75,004
Sex offenses (except forcible rape and prostitution) 79,914
Drug abuse violations 1,702,537
Gambling 9,811
Offenses against the family and children 118,419
Driving under the influence 1,483,396
Liquor laws 625,939
Drunkenness 611,069
Disorderly conduct 685,985
Vagrancy 33,852
All other offenses 3,835,083
Suspicion 1,650
Curfew and loitering law violations 133,063
Runaways 109,225
"One could ask why most, if not all of law enforcement believed their bogus statistics and numbers."
There is no reason to believe they did.
May 22, 2010 11:10:00 AM
Those are arrests, not rapes.
So....
call it 30,000 forcible rapes in a year to allow for 50% under-reporting, call it population 300,000,000.
1 in 10,000 chance, or 0.01% chance, of being raped in any one year.
assume you have 40 "rape" risk years from age 15 to age 55
1 in 250 chance or 0.4% chance, of being raped at some time in your life
and this is REALLY padding the figures....
so...
FBI FACT = 0.4% lifetime chance
FEMINAZI FUD 25% lifetime chance
so even with our vastly padded numbers, the feminazis are overstating the case by a factor of 62.5
as the other anon said, these FBI numbers are arrests, not rapes
Arod99k, thanks for posting these figures. I found those, too. They may give us a ballpark estimate but that's all.
The number of rapes reported, the number of arrests made, etc., aren't accurate for determining the number of rapists because some of them are repeat offenders. That shrinks the total number of men who rape, whatever it is, even more.
But let's assume every rape is committed by a different individual; the total still constitutes a tiny segment of the male population in the USA.
That would be 22,584 (presumably male) rapists out of 140 million males (an estimate based on the figure of 139,267,200 per 2000 census data).
Even if you total the number of sex offenders (not all of whom are rapists) on state registries, the number increases to 553,369, per
http://www.familywatchdog.us/OffenderCountByState.asp Still a small fraction of the total number of male NON-rapists in the USA.
NON-rapists. Isn't it ludicrous that the feminist obsession with rape requires this topsy-turvy designation, as if the tiny fraction of rapists is the rule, and the millions of other men, the NON-rapists, are the exception to the rule? What a pathetic state of bass-ackwardness our culture has been pretzeled into.
The number of rapes reported, the number of arrests made, etc., aren't accurate for determining the number of rapists because some of them are repeat offenders. That shrinks the total number of men who rape, whatever it is, even more.
*****
There are very, very few serial rapists. Almost no convicted rapists who are re-arrested go back to jail after committing another rape -- it's almost always for something else.
Anonymous at 2:31:00, thanks for the information. Perhaps part of the confusion about recidivism occurs because the broad term "sex offender" includes more than just rapists.
However, regardless of how you slice and dice it, the number of men who rape is way too small a percentage of the male population to account for the rape hysteria feminists try to keep stirred up.
Very true, especially considering that rape is over 70% less common than it was just fifteen years ago or so. Even sites like RAINN.org acknowledge this fact, although feminists still like to pretend that the sky is falling.
False Rape Accusations should be a felony in all 50 states!
Write your representative in the state where you are from and tell him or her to take action on this issue now!
The fact that women can falsely accuse men and boys of rape and still keep their liberty and anonymity and then claim victim status is an injustice!
Blogs by themselves don't help. You must take action on this issue or nothing will change!
"There are very, very few serial rapists."
That's because there are very few rapists, but most rapists are serial rapists.
"Almost no convicted rapists who are re-arrested go back to jail after committing another rape -- it's almost always for something else."
This ignores three very important things. Firstly, it ignores false convictions (the convict was never a rapist in the first place). Secondly, it ignores that those convicted of rape often receive lengthy sentences (the convict is much older upon release).
Finally, it ignores rapists convicted for multiple offenses (who were serial rapists before going to prison).
That's because there are very few rapists, but most rapists are serial rapists.
****
Absolutely not. Serial rapists are a rare anomaly. That is a statistical fact, not an opinion. Even RAINN.org acknowledges this.
****
"Almost no convicted rapists who are re-arrested go back to jail after committing another rape -- it's almost always for something else."
This ignores three very important things. Firstly, it ignores false convictions (the convict was never a rapist in the first place). Secondly, it ignores that those convicted of rape often receive lengthy sentences (the convict is much older upon release).
****
Did you have a mini-stroke just before posting? The things you just said have nothing whatsoever to do with recidivism for rapists.
"That is a statistical fact, not an opinion. Even RAINN.org acknowledges this."
Ignoring the obvious uncertainty in all of this, please show me these supposed statistics. And what RAINN acknowledges is irrelevant.
"Did you have a mini-stroke just before posting? The things you just said have nothing whatsoever to do with recidivism for rapists."
You seriously can't understand how the false conviction rate would effect the recidivism rate?
Anonymous at 3:22:00 PM, there are laws in my state against false accusations.
From "Title XLVI, Crimes, Chapter 794
794.011 Sexual battery --
http://tinyurl.com/29wq47o
Any person who falsely accuses any person listed in paragraph (4) (g) ( "law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or correctional probation officer... or any other person in a position of control or authority in a probation, community control, controlled release, detention, custodial, or similar setting...") or other person in a position of control or authority as an agent or employee of government of violating paragraph (4)(g) is guilty of a felony of the third degree"
The punishment for a third degree felony is described as "...a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years" and/or "a $5,000 fine."
If you're not a law enforcement officer or other authority but you're falsely accused of sexual battery, perhaps this statute applies:
Title XLVI, Crimes, Chapter 837, Perjury
837.05 False reports to law enforcement authorities.--
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever knowingly gives false information to any law enforcement officer concerning the alleged commission of any crime, commits a misdemeanor of the first degree (a year in prison and/or a $1,000 fine).
(2) Whoever knowingly gives false information to a law enforcement officer concerning the alleged commission of a capital felony, commits a felony of the third degree (noted above).
The 2009 Florida Statutes
http://tinyurl.com/27lb9wm
You seriously can't understand how the false conviction rate would effect the recidivism rate?
******
Yes, of course I do; it's just that it has nothing to do with what I said. I'm not sure you're processing information very well.
Since you brought it up, the data is perfectly consistent with a high rate of false convictions -- the recidivism rate for convicted rapists is over one-third lower than for felons in general. But there is an enormous difference between recidivism for "stranger rapists" and "date rapists."
Men who are convicted of date rape have an incredibly low recidivism rate -- those convicted of stranger rape have a rate that is much higher, but still lower than for felons in general. (And we need to remember that not all convicted felons are guilty, either!)
A simple explanation for all of this is that some men are falsely convicted for stranger rape, but as many as half of men convicted of date rape are innocent. (This is not as far-fetched as it may sound, since in most of these cases the only "evidence" is the alleged victim's testimony.)
As for RAINN.org's facts, go check them yourself; at some point you need to learn how to do your own research.
"As for RAINN.org's facts, go check them yourself; at some point you need to learn how to do your own research."
Oh please.
I'm not arguing that the false conviction rate is not significant.
You are claiming that most rapists are not serial rapists is a "statistical fact", yet you can't show me these supposed statistics.
And as far as http://www.rainn.org/statistics is concerned, every statement on that page is false.
Absolutely wrong. There certainly are questionable claims on that page, but most of the actual stats are from the Department of Justice. Many of these facts do not jive with feminist claims about rape.
For example, here is the breakdown on recidivism. You will notice that rapists very rarely are arrested again for another rape, and are almost always involved in other crimes.
****
The Criminal
•The average age of a rapist is 31 years old.2
•52% are white.2
•22% of imprisoned rapists report that they are married.2
•Juveniles accounted for 16% of forcible rape arrestees in 1995 and 17% of those arrested for other sex offenses.2
•In 1 in 3 sexual assaults, the perpetrator was intoxicated — 30% with alcohol, 4% with drugs.3
•In 2001, 11% of rapes involved the use of a weapon — 3% used a gun, 6% used a knife, and 2 % used another form of weapon.2
•84% of victims reported the use of physical force only.2
Rapists are more likely to be a serial criminal than a serial rapist.
46% of rapists who were released from prison were re-arrested within 3 years of their release for another crime.4
•18.6% for a violent offense.
•14.8% for a property offense.
•11.2% for a drug offense.
•20.5% for a public-order offense.
Now let's see YOUR facts and figures, proving that most rapists are serial rapists.
And that 46% figure is significantly lower than the rate for most felons. There are other examples of statistics showing a substantially lower recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders than for other felons (although when they do re-offend, it is almost always for something other than rape), for example this from the state of Washington: http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Recidivism/Adult_Recidivism_CY04.pdf
It is important not to just dismiss these facts, because the implications are astounding: as many as one-third of men convicted of rape may be innocent. It is very difficult to explain these numbers any other way.
In Canada only 43% of reported sexual assaults result in charges,and only 26% of those charged are found guilty.I think this says something about false accusations or misunderstood concepts of the law by many women. source:Statistics Canada
"Absolutely wrong. There certainly are questionable claims on that page, but most of the actual stats are from the Department of Justice."
No, not absolutely wrong. As it's been repeatedly demonstrated on this site, the NCVS is complete horseshit. Who decides to publish it is irrelevant. If DOJ comes out with a report from a retard with a dartboard, it doesn't make it true.
Regardless, you are claiming that most rapists are not serial rapists is a "statistical fact". "Absolutely" and "not an opinion" you say. Now, having researched this on and off for almost twenty years, if there is one thing I'm certain is that nothing about rape is absolutely certain. Yet, you seem utterly confident in this claim, for which you can show no evidence.
"It is important not to just dismiss these facts, because the implications are astounding: as many as one-third of men convicted of rape may be innocent. It is very difficult to explain these numbers any other way."
Well, actually there are other ways to explain it, but you are correct that a false conviction that high is indeed plausible, and may be much higher. It's that you are doing it wrong.
If you're after rape statistics, please review Angry Harry's YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RliMu2JxVr0
Regardless, you are claiming that most rapists are not serial rapists is a "statistical fact". "Absolutely" and "not an opinion" you say. Now, having researched this on and off for almost twenty years, if there is one thing I'm certain is that nothing about rape is absolutely certain. Yet, you seem utterly confident in this claim, for which you can show no evidence.
***
Unfortunately, there is such a thing as just plain stupid. Unfortunately, that is the only way to describe that statement.
There are many facts described by the DoJ that are not in dispute. Of course, the DoJ can't tell us how many innocent men are convicted, or how many rape accusations are false.
But obviously (well, obviously to anybody who has a brain...) the DoJ can tell us that reports of rape are far less common than they used to be, that convicted rapists have a far lower recidivism rate than other felons, and that when convicted rapists are arrested again, it is almost always for something other than rape.
Now I don't know if any power on earth can force someone like you to be interested in facts such as those, or to believe anything other than whatever he happened to pull out of his butt this afternoon (or twenty years ago, however long you've been doing your Forest Gump routine). But these facts are not disputable, either by a feminist or an MRA.
It is a straight-up fact that the vast majority of rapists are common criminals, not serial rapists. I challenge anybody to produce even the slightest shred of objective evidence to the contrary.
Well, actually there are other ways to explain it, but you are correct that a false conviction that high is indeed plausible, and may be much higher. It's that you are doing it wrong.
****
I have produced DoJ statistics. Now produce yours.
This bears repeating: the recidivism rate for convicted rapists is much lower than for other convicted felons -- even though the vast majority of convicted rapists are involved in other crimes. You have already seen the 46% figure; this shows the numbers for felons in general:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933722.html
"Confronting Confinement, a June 2006 U.S. prison study by the bipartisan Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons, reports than on any given day more than 2 million people are incarcerated in the United States, and that over the course of a year, 13.5 million spend time in prison or jail. African Americans are imprisoned at a rate roughly seven times higher than whites, and Hispanics at a rate three times higher than whites. Within three years of their release, 67% of former prisoners are rearrested and 52% are re-incarcerated, a recidivism rate that calls into question the effectiveness of America's corrections system, which costs taxpayers $60 billion a year."
****
Think about that -- and remember, almost all convicted rapists are also involved in other crimes.
All convicted felons: 67% recidivism rate (with 3 years, arrested for another crime).
Convicted rapists: 46% (and when they are arrested, it is for the same crimes that felons in general commit).
That makes no sense at all unless a very large number of innocent men are being convicted. MRAs need to look very closely at recidivism rates, because they tell an important story.
Connie
I think you are lucky to live in one of the few states where false accusations are a felony....as they should be in all states.
But even if they were a felony on all states the false accuser still has to be CHARGED!
In the Duke case and in the Hofstra case two of the most widely publicized false rape cases neither false accuser was even CHARGED with a crime!
And then there was the scumbag who painted the backwards B on her face, who was just slapped on the wrist.
Sexual assault = Rape (proposed legislation in India)
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Draft-bill-puts-sexual-assault-on-a-par-with-rape/articleshow/5960372.cms
Under the draft bill, if a man forcibly even puts his finger into a woman's mouth —or lets his tongue enter her mouth during a kiss — he could end up in jail for sexual assault with the sentence being no less than the punishment for rape, which is seven years to life. The draft bill also seeks a stricter age of consent, raising it from 16 to 18.
****
Wow. And I thought it was bad in America!
I'm pretty sure in the united states putting your finger in someones mouth is considered rape.
I don't know if you're up for writing an historical post, Archivist, but this story in the NY Times a couple weeks ago is an early example of a possible FRA targeting a poor black man.
Has many of the elements we discuss right here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/arts/television/06radio.html?scp=5&sq=rape%20opinion&st=cse
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article7133925.ece
Naming rape suspects ruins lives
@ Anonymous on May 22, 2010 8:34:00 PM
"And then there was the scumbag who painted the backwards B on her face, who was just slapped on the wrist."
Painted? No she carved it onto her face, because those with borderline personality disorder or Munchausen's Syndrome will often cut themselves deliberately. It is an important point to consider in false rape cases when the accuser will injure themselves to make their claims more believable.
From the link AfOR's posted:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article7133925.ece
"What is legal sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. The law rightly protects women in rape trials from the particular miseries involved; it should equally protect male defendants from the corresponding miseries, because every man is innocent until proved guilty.
Of course the man’s name should be made public if he is found guilty, just as the woman’s name would be made public if he were found not guilty. It is only right that a convicted rapist should face the hatred and contempt people feel for him: that is part of his punishment. The government’s proposal would simply mean that a man faced these penalties only after conviction. It would avoid advance trial by media lynch mob."
As an American, and as falsely accused, I wish this type of reason, accountability and sanity were part of the US legal system and jurisprudence.
'Oh, to be in England....'
What seems apparent from all your ad hominem nonsense, is that you want to desperately cling to a belief that you can't defend otherwise. Instead, if you bothered to listen to those who know way more than you do, you might actually learn something and stop repeating the same falsehoods.
"But obviously (well, obviously to anybody who has a brain...) the DoJ can tell us that reports of rape are far less common than they used to be"
That's nice, except both the methods of accounting and the statutes related to the offense have changed...
"that convicted rapists have a far lower recidivism rate than other felons"
No, it can only tell us about who has been caught. Which is useful, but far from absolute certainty.
The problem here is that you want to conclude that most rapists are not serial rapists based on recidivism. Far from being a "statistical fact", such a conclusion ignores so many other factors to the point of being non sequitur.
Worse, it's begging the question. Your conclusion that most rapists are one-time offenders is based on the premise that most rapists are one-time offenders, that these alleged rapists were found and convicted after their first and only rape. Which is simply not plausible.
Then you keep bringing up false convictions without seeming to be able to grasp how someone who never raped in the first place wouldn't rape "again".
But what would be completely unbelievable, if you were making any sense up until this point, is that you want to derive false convictions from the rate of recidivism while at the same time arguing that serial rapists are a rare anomaly.
"It is a straight-up fact that the vast majority of rapists are common criminals, not serial rapists."
No it isn't, and calling something that contradicts everything we know about the pathology of rape, and criminology in general, a "straight-up fact" doesn't make it true. Putting aside crimes of desperation, regardless of the offense, most offenders are serial-offenders. Rare is the drug dealer who has made only one deal, or the car thief who has stolen only one car. Those you call "common criminals" are generally motivated by material gain. Which doesn't apply to rape. Sexual predators are predatory by nature, and what causes a rapist to rape isn't going to apply to only one victim. Nor is it dependent on their occupation, criminal or otherwise.
"False reports to law enforcement authorities.--"
Connie, "false reports" is not the same as "a falsified accusation of rape". This is specific. A false reporting of a crime doesn't carry a very long sentence and isn't much of a deterrent against false rape.
12:46 that was brilliant
In addition to that, if rape incidents are 70% less than they were 15 years ago, the measures to curb rape is obviously working. Isn't it frightening to wonder what the statistics were before 1995, before 1980, before 1965, etc.
Anon 12:46, at this point I'll just give up. Enjoy living in your fantasy world in which there is no such thing as credible statistics.
Sometimes an idiot is just an idiot.
In addition to that, if rape incidents are 70% less than they were 15 years ago, the measures to curb rape is obviously working.
****
No Ms. Feminist Troll, that is not the implication at all. The measures that have reduced crime in general have reduced rape; the harsh sentencing for rape has all but nothing to do with it.
If you put a criminal who is not at risk to re-offend -- which is the vast majority of convicted rapists (again, DoJ stats back this up; there is nothing controversial about them) in jail for twenty years, you do no more to influence rape rates than you would if you only locked him up for two years. I'll put this in caps, because it's such an important point: CONVICTED RAPISTS ARE NOT MORE OF A THREAT TO COMMIT ANOTHER RAPE THAN ARE FELONS IN GENERAL.
Those are the facts, but as happens all too often in these debates, the facts are whatever the feminists (including feminist concern trolls) want them to be.
And I shouldn't even have to say this, but since we're dealing with stupid on a vast scale on this thread, such arguments as "that's assuming he never committed a rape before being arrested" are complete bullshit; if a substantial percentage of convicted rapists were indeed serial rapists then they would be re-arrested for rape far more often than they are. Facts are wonderful things, and MRAs should rely on them, not on lies and irrationalism.
"It is a straight-up fact that the vast majority of rapists are common criminals, not serial rapists."
No it isn't, and calling something that contradicts everything we know about the pathology of rape, and criminology in general, a "straight-up fact" doesn't make it true. Putting aside crimes of desperation, regardless of the offense, most offenders are serial-offenders.
****
I'll demonstrate what I mean by "idiot": in this case, a person who can't grasp the meaning of the basic terms we are using.
A "serial rapist" is "a criminal who commits multiple rapes," not "a criminal who commits crimes other than rape." I explained clearly that the recidivism rate for convicted rapists is 46% -- but importantly, these criminals almost never commit another rape; they are arrested for doing something else.
It is also the hallmark of an idiot that respond "No it isn't!" like a child and to make ridiculous claims about "everything we know about the pathology of rape!" when reliable statistical evidence from a credible source has been placed on the table.
And it's strange that in one post you would make the bizarre and idiotic claim that "when it comes to rape, everything in uncertain" and in another you would babble about "everything we know about the pathology of rape!"
If everything is uncertain as you proclaim in your less lucid posts then there can't be such a thing as "everything we know about the pathology of rape!" You can't pretend that we don't know anything and then swing around and claim that we know everything.
In short, what makes sense in your pitiful excuse for a mind makes no sense in the real world. Your lack of reasoning skills is pathetic.
May 23, 2010 2:48:00 PM
May 23, 2010 2:53:00 PM
May 23, 2010 3:00:00 PM
facepalm.jpg
You know, on the other thread, some airhead is arguing that we should never, ever insult feminist trolls or engage in ad hominem attacks. In short, we should rely on facts and logic, because "the truth fights for itself."
I sure hope that isn't the same person on this thread, because if this is what passes for facts and logic then we sure as hell had better be able to make emotional appeals.
I can't even convince this, uh, person that the vast majority of rapists are not serial rapists. Even though DoJ statisticians freely admit this inconvenient fact.
Apparently facts only exist when you want them to. Unless, of course, we accept at face value the old feminist canard about rapes almost never being reported. Perhaps that claim about serial rapists makes sense, if you assume that only 1 in 1000 rapes is reported.
It doesn't make sense under any other circumstances.
Speaking of facts, I'm still waiting for a single set of statistics, a single study, a single example of ANYTHING suggesting that most rapists are serial rapists. I have produced the facts.
The Angry Harry video, while it is entertaining, says absolutely nothing in contradiction of what I have said about rape recidivism rates. Apparently some people only accept a set of facts if they come down from the lap of their favorite guru.
You do have to think for yourself now and then, you know.
"Even though DoJ statisticians freely admit this inconvenient fact."
Except they don't.
Yes, they do.
Sir, you are simply a liar. We shouldn't tolerate this sort of willful stupidity. I'm still not sure whether or not your an incognito feminist troublemaker or just an unbelievably stupid excuse for an MRA, but you have now proven that you are incapable of reasoning as an adult. Shame on you.
The facts about recidivism rates for rape are essential for defending men, including innocent men. Nothing but harm can come from distorting those facts, which are well established.
Mindlessly asserting that DoJ statisticians are a bunch of dart-throwing monkeys doesn't change the facts.
The vast majority of rapes are committed by common criminals who never commit a second rape. That is simply a fact. If you want to refute this fact then you will need to start presenting some facts of your own. Facepalm.jpg isn't an argument.
You know what? I thought I was on an MRA blog about false rape accusations, where facts counted -- not back in court, where liars can get away with anything.
It is simply incredible that this punk can sit there and type in "No, they don't." Can't you fucking read?
Frankly, you should have been a Durham prosecutor; you have the right IQ and irrational mentality.
All these Anonymouses - I have no idea WHO is arguing WHAT!
@ Snark
Agreed, the place is turning into an Anon v Anon flamefest.
Perhaps it is time to ban the Anonymous button.
Mainly, the argument is over the following claim: "Most rapists are serial rapists."
In response to this, I posted Department of Justice stats, which show not only a far lower recidivism rate for convicted rapists -- due to a high false conviction rate? -- but also that when convicted rapists ARE arrested again, it is almost never for another rape.
He replied by claiming that Department of Justice statisticians are a bunch of dart-throwing monkeys.
I responded negatively to this claim.
Then he denied that Department of Justice statisticians show in their facts and figures that recidivism rates for rape are low, after having called them liars and monkeys.
Maybe this doesn't seem important, but it is. Everything that our wonderful legal system does is based on the popular misconception: "Most rapists are serial rapists."
It isn't true. When somebody comes in here selling that crap we need to call them on it.
In this case, the "experts" (yes, experts often have a feminist bias) clearly and strongly refute this misconception. It is very, very rare for anyone to be arrested for rape twice.
Thus, it is highly destructive and misguided for the system to make it so easy to convict men based on little evidence, or to slam first time offenders with twenty-five year sentences. That doesn't have much impact at all on rape rates.
@ Dr. Snark May 23, 2010 4:19:00 PM:
"All these Anonymouses - I have no idea WHO is arguing WHAT!"
Cite them by time and date when replying to them and the ambiguity goes away....
@ AfOR May 23, 2010 4:24:00 PM
" AfOR said...
@ Snark
Agreed, the place is turning into an Anon v Anon flamefest.
Perhaps it is time to ban the Anonymous button."
If they do this and they'll lose some of the most important regular commentators on this blog who must remain anonymous and who will never use a pseudonym beyond "Anonymous." To correct the lack of clarity in addressing posts, cite anonymous comments with time and date as others have suggested or go to a hierarchical threading system.
Keep the anonymous button!! Some here feel it is not ??Safe?? to speak out against the RapeKlan juggernaut, and feel "Safer" commenting with the use of the anonymous button.
Bullshit
You can be as anonymous as you like, just pick a handle and use the Name/URL option.
Guys, I'm pretty sure that you will always be allowed to comment Anonymously.
I would recommend getting a handle though, it makes it a lot easier to follow.
AfOR said...
Bullshit
You can be as anonymous as you like, just pick a handle and use the Name/URL option.
May 23, 2010 5:59:00 PM
No bullshit. It's a necessary choice. See ya.
"The vast majority of rapes are committed by common criminals who never commit a second rape."
That's an easy one. Chances are he probably raped women until he got caught.
"He replied by claiming that Department of Justice statisticians are a bunch of dart-throwing monkeys."
No one here said that.
"Then he denied that Department of Justice statisticians show in their facts and figures that recidivism rates for rape are low"
No one said that either.
"The vast majority of rapes are committed by common criminals who never commit a second rape."
That's an easy one. Chances are he probably raped women until he got caught.
****
If there was a grand prize for stupidity you would have won it with this inane remark. Please take your medication before reading further.
#1- These crime statistics describe all of the cases -- tens of thousands -- not just one. There is no "he."
#2- These are recidivism rates -- meaning what happens after convicts get out of prison. Your idiotic comment about "he probably raped women until he got caught!" demonstrates that you don't have a clue what that word means. We are obviously discussing what happened after the convicts were caught, then later released.
#3- It is very, very illogical to suggest that these convicted rapists were all serial rapists until they were caught, then upon release they (for some magical reason) stopped committing rapes, but continued committing other crimes.
The numbers are exactingly clear on this point. There is no rational argument in favor of the popular misconception that most rapists are serial rapists. Very, very few of them are. Almost all rapes are committed by common criminals who are involved in a wide range of illegal activity.
You are not allowed to continue making stupid assertions like this, based on nothing other than the status of your glands.
Oh -- and here is the dart-throwing monkeys comment:
***
No, not absolutely wrong. As it's been repeatedly demonstrated on this site, the NCVS is complete horseshit. Who decides to publish it is irrelevant. If DOJ comes out with a report from a retard with a dartboard, it doesn't make it true.
****
I guess it was retards with a dartboard, not monkeys. So sorry about that.
And this is interesting, considering that absolutely nothing I've referred to has anything whatsoever to do with the NCVS. Everything I've discussed relates to hard, reliable numbers, such as recidivism rates (how many ex-cons get arrested again within three years).
This has nothing at all to do with bogus feminist stats, such as the 2% canard. Stop confusing the issue.
In case anyone thinks this isn't an important issue, consider the following.
You are on a jury, hearing a he said/she said rape case. There is nothing to go on but her word. Nonetheless, she has put on a good performance -- she is believable. He has chosen not to testify. You aren't supposed to consider that, but it's difficult not to.
What is going to determine how you rule?
Well, let's think about this the same way that most people probably do -- in terms of popular misconceptions that arise from sensationalistic media coverage and from feminist stereotypes.
Sitting there in that jury box, you probably think that if the man is guilty, and if he is released, he will probably commit more rapes. You will have that on your conscience.
If you are familiar with the statistical evidence, you will know that just isn't true; even if he is 100% guilty, he probably will never commit a rape again in his life. Even better -- if he is guilty, he will probably get caught later on for committing a crime other than rape.
Given those facts, it makes a great deal of sense to lean heavily in favor of the defendent, who could be completely innocent.
But if you believe the sort of nonsense that has been spewed on this blog, contradicting DoJ stats, then you will be sorely tempted to lean the other way: in favor of conviction.
None of this is to suggest that there is no such thing as serial rapists -- we see them in the news all of the time, since their cases attract a lot of attention. But they are the rare exceptions.
The rule is the common criminal who just happened to have committed a rape.
My comment "on this blog" should have read "on this thread." I wasn't criticizing the FRS in any way.
"And this is interesting, considering that absolutely nothing I've referred to has anything whatsoever to do with the NCVS."
See May 22, 2010 6:17:00 PM,
follow that page to the footnotes, then see May 22, 2010 6:41:00 PM.
You're assuming that just because a statistic is referred to at RAINN.org, it is bogus. That is incorrect.
The numbers I referred to -- which even a victim's website like RAINN acknowledges to be true -- are DoJ statistics, having nothing whatsoever to do with victim surveys.
I have said nothing whatsoever about victim surveys, which are indeed largely unreliable. But you know that, don't you?
Among the facts established by the DoJ:
-Rape has fallen over 60% since 1993.
-Recidivism rates for convicted sex offenders are only 46%, compared to 67% for felons in general. (Exactly what you would expect if there is a high rate of false convictions for rape!)
-Convicted sex offenders very rarely commit another rape.
The percentage of convicted sex offenders who are convicted of another sex crime is only 3%! But don't take my word for it:
http://www.ipce.info/newsletters/e_18/myths_facts_recidivism.htm
By the way, for those of you who haven't done this, it is an absolute joy to throw RAINN.org's own statistics page in a feminist's face; the only problem is when the X-Files type MRAs get confused about what you're doing.
Since feminist trolls find it easier to believe in Santa Claus than in DoJ statistics, here is a quote from that link:
***
Others repeated this belief which is the basis of demanding harsher sentences and civil commitment where offenders may be held indefinitely after the end of their sentences. While it is impossible to establish if sex offenders are cured as there is no way to determine what they may think, their behaviour, their rates of recidivism, are matter of much investigation and record.
A recent report of the American Justice Department [see below] report looked at almost ten thousand sex offenders released in 1994 and found that only three percent were subsequently convicted of another sex offence, a much lower rate than for other crimes.
More evidence: http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060516_predator_panic.html
Much of the concern over sex offenders stems from the perception that if they have committed one sex offense, they are almost certain to commit more. This is the reason given for why sex offenders (instead of, say, murderers or armed robbers) should be monitored and separated from the public once released from prison.
The high recidivism rate among sex offenders is repeated so often that it is usually accepted as truth, but in fact recent studies show that the recidivism rates for sex offenses is not unusually high. According to a U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics study ("Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994"), just five percent of sex offenders followed for three years after their release from prison in 1994 were arrested for another sex crime.
And I'll repeat: I made no reference whatsoever to crime victimization surveys, which are bullshit. When you ask a bunch of people if they were raped, unfortunately many of them will lie.
For example, this: http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/01/26/13rd-of-women-in-us-military-raped/
According to NPR, “In 2003, a survey of female veterans found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving. And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, found that 90 percent had been sexually harassed.”
(30% of them were raped, but for some magical reason they didn't just leave the army.)
I don't think anyone should raise the bullshit flag on anyone else here concerning privacy issues, or feel the need to tag anonymous comments, or think worse of someone wanting to speak their mind here behind a moniker. To me, it's all good.
Some things to read and think about:
http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/tag/anonymous-speech/
http://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Speech:_Anonymity
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca-sub/faq.cgi#QID509
http://www.linuxpromagazine.com/Online/Blogs/ROSE-Blog-Rikki-s-Open-Source-Exchange/Free-as-in-Speech-The-First-Amendment-Anonymity-and-the-Internet
http://twopointouch.com/2010/social-media/anonymous-comments-save-nitehawk99/
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/news-websites-texas-and-kentucky-invoke-shield-laws-online-commenters
http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/the-editors-desk/the-editors-desk/2009/11/post-a-vulgar-comment-while-youre-at-work-lose-your-job/
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/story-lab/2010/03/blowback_commenting_on_debt_co.html?hpid=newswell
http://www.metropulse.com/news/2009/nov/04/online-comments-civic-engagement-its-bestor-worst/
http://www.jacklail.com/blog/archives/2010/03/i-missed-the-running-twitter.html
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/the_end_of_online_anonymity.php
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/09/18/0918comments.html
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2346289,00.asp
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112450627
http://www.lawtonpolitics.com/node/76
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/plagiarism-detection-style-software-identify-authors-of-terrorist-propaganda/238
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/future-tech/69845.html?wlc=1274656637
"Far Less Privacy
We are currently being mined for everything, and much of the work is going into indexing and improving the ability to find the result. By the end of 2013, we should have some very advanced tools to collect and aggregate posts by pattern, and quickly create a profile of someone based on what is available on the Web about them and what they have posted since they first got on the Web.
I can imagine a lot of really interesting conversations with job applicants, at termination meetings, or at performance reviews when this material comes to light. "
I want to give data miners as little ammunition as possible.
So, no tags for me. You can do what you want. I don't care.
Fuck it, this is being turned into an Anonymous joe-job wankfest where it is now impossible to follow the comments, because they have been submerged in a deluge of false flag flaming, which is the entire purpose of it.
Someone out there doesn't like FRS enough to try to wreck it, and they are succeeding...
And I have forgotten more about networks and data than most people will ever know, and anyone who thinks selecting the Anonymous radio button over the Name/URL radio button makes even the slightest difference to their level of anonymity is a complete fucking idiot.
Those who claim otherwise are indulging in straw-man arguments in order to perpetuate the vandalism.
Fuck you, AfOR. If you don't like the rules regarding anonymous posting then get the hell out. This blog is for the falsely accused, who often do not wish to attract attention to themselves.
@AfOR May 23, 2010 9:33:00 PM
"And I have forgotten more about networks and data than most people will ever know, and anyone who thinks selecting the Anonymous radio button over the Name/URL radio button makes even the slightest difference to their level of anonymity is a complete fucking idiot."
Really? So, tell me, what keeps "a complete fucking idiot" from typing in "AfOR" and posting as you!? Nothing. Technically, they could investigate and possibly identify the culprit, but legally it may make no difference, as no technical means of establishing identity on the internet is completely fool proof, which as an IT veteran, you know well. So, the tags are meaningless and possibly harmful if someone were to "steal" your tagged identity. And so we arrive back at the guilty until proven innocent thing. "Prove it was AfOR that said such-and-such." Prove it wasn't! Posting as "Anonymous," may be confusing and it may attract trolls, but it at least can't be compromised by an impersonator. I would prefer strong moderation (that defines standards for personal and social decorum) or the adoption of a hierarchical system of comments (which would require a transition to a new platform) to aid in reducing confusion. In the absence of these things, I think it's time for me, as a falsely accused person, to quit posting altogether. Archivist and Steven have started something good here and I won't ruin it by either my own good intentions and well-meaning discourse or through infighting.
Silence is golden. Duct tape is silver. The US Constitution is paper. FRA's are everywhere.
"In addition to that, if rape incidents are 70% less than they were 15 years ago, the measures to curb rape is obviously working."
This is a classic Heads-I-Win, Tails-You-Lose type argument. If rape is falling, this will be cited as proof that the current approach is working. If rape is increasing, this will be cited as proof that even tougher measures are needed. So you win either way! How convenient!
When crime in general is low, rape is low. When crime in general is high, rape is high. Overly harsh penalties for first time offenders -- the ones who are most likely to be innocent -- make very little difference.
"Someone out there doesn't like FRS enough to try to wreck it, and they are succeeding..."
Eh, hardly. FRS is its posts more than its comments.
"You're assuming that just because a statistic is referred to at RAINN.org, it is bogus. That is incorrect."
I don't see where anyone here made that assumption.
"I have said nothing whatsoever about victim surveys, which are indeed largely unreliable. But you know that, don't you?"
No, you said that it was "absolutely wrong" that every statement on http://www.rainn.org/statistics was false. But every statement on that page is from a victim survey, mostly the NCVS.
Nor did anyone in this thread deny that "that Department of Justice statisticians show in their facts and figures that recidivism rates for rape are low".
"I'll put this in caps, because it's such an important point: CONVICTED RAPISTS ARE NOT MORE OF A THREAT TO COMMIT ANOTHER RAPE THAN ARE FELONS IN GENERAL."
Well, then good thing using the shift key magically makes things true, because according to the study cited by RAINN, to which you keep referring, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994, NCJ 193427, page 10, "a rapist's odds are 4.2 times a non-rapist's odds of being rearrested for rape".
No, you said that it was "absolutely wrong" that every statement on http://www.rainn.org/statistics was false. But every statement on that page is from a victim survey, mostly the NCVS.
****
Absolutely not. As for the other stat, the number (I love having to keep repeating these basic facts) is only 3%.
Are you ever going to acknowledge that you're just plain wrong when you claim that most rapists are serial rapists? Like the feminist wannabe you are you keep hiding your head in the sand from the facts!
I also love how you think that recidivism rates are determined by crime victim surveys.
May 24, 2010 1:30:00 PM
May 24, 2010 1:31:00 PM
While garden-variety stupid and angry is one thing, at this point this could only be explained by deliberate trolling or actual psychosis.
Okay.
But if I'm the troll then why are you the one defending feminist myths about rape? You have clung to the feminist party line that most rapists are serial rapists throughout this discussion, in the face of overwhelming statistical evidence.
You, in fact, are the troll -- and a hypocrite. It's pathetic, really.
As of this point, I'm closing comments for this thread. It is devolving into a name calling morass, and that really isn't helping.
Post a Comment