Read it here: http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110331/GJNEWS_01/703319732/-1/FOSNEWS
Under no scenario, no matter how how the numbers are twisted, pounded, and contorted, can this one-in-five figure (or is it one-in-three? Or one-in-four? Or one-in-six? Or one-in-seven? Or one-in-four before Thanksgiving of Freshman year -- we've seen every manifestation of this "one-in" canard) be reconciled with the alleged rate of undrerreporting these same women's groups posit.
Really, you say? That's correct. We've previously showed that, using their own (inflated) 90 percent underreporting figure (note: even RAINN says its only 60 percent) to prove beyond any question that it's not one-in-five, but more like One-in-One-Thousand-Eight-Hundred-Seventy-Seven. See here. That number was obtained using a large urban campus as a laboratory. You can do similar math for almost any college -- just find the number of reported sexual assaults for that college, figure out the number that "should" have been reported if there were no underreporting, and I promise you that the chasm between their own number of sexual assaults that should have been be reported and their "one-in-whatever" canard will be of jaw dropping, Biblical proportions.
If the "one-in-five" figure were correct, our college campuses would be more dangerous places than the Tadmor Prison in Syria, where the bloodthirsty guards butcher inmates with axes for the fun of it. And, there would be something terribly, terribly wrong with the male gender.
Since women's groups can't even mount an internally consistent argument about the prevalence of rape -- their "one-in-whatever" number and their underreporting stats produce numbers that aren't just vastly different but are in different universes -- how is it that they have any credibility at all?