Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Another Rape Urban Myth: What Fuels These?

The horror flick Candyman (1992) had an intriguing premise: what if a frightening urban legend could literally take on a life of its own by the sheer psychic weight of widespread belief in it?

If you saw the film, you will recall that a couple of plucky female grad students, studying modern urban folklore, set out to study the origins of, with the goal of ultimately debunking, one such particularly nasty legend: that of the murderous, hook-handed Candyman, believed to terrorize a crime-ridden Chicago housing project.

But because the grad students are threatening Candyman's very survival by casting doubt on him, he assumes corporeal form and appears to one of them. "I am the writing on the wall," he explains. "The whisper in the classroom. Without these things, I am nothing." Because of her lack of faith in him, he decides he needs to fuel the legend, so he devises a gruesome death for her. "Your death," he tells her, "will be a tale to frighten children, to make lovers cling closer in their rapture. Come with me and be immortal."

North Dakota Rape Myth

Is the premise of Candyman so outlandish? We've seen time and time again on this site that rape urban legends often take on a life of their own. In one North Dakota town, there's an urban legend circulating that tells women they shouldn`t go to the local Walmart after 8 pm because men are using chloroform to knock them out and rape them. A similar legend says that gangs of oil riggers are harassing women outside Walmart.

Police say it's a lie. “No reports have been received by the police department that anybody was chloroformed or assaulted while at Walmart," said Sergeant Dave Wilkie of the Dickinson Police Department.  See here: http://www.kfyrtv.com/News_Stories.asp?news=50989

Date Rape Drug Myth

The most prominent of the rape urban myths we've reported on involved the date rape drug hysteria that was all the rage a couple of years ago. It was so strong that people even believed a viral e-mail that claimed men were passing a powerful date rape drug to women merely by handing them their business cards. The drug supposedly incapacitated women just by touching it. Of course, the email was a hoax, an urban myth.

A study published in the British Journal of Criminology a couple of years ago found that three-quarters of students surveyed identified drink spiking as an important rape risk – more than alcohol.  More than half said they knew someone whose drink had been spiked.  And it was all a lie. Hokum. Despite popular beliefs, there is no evidence that rape victims are commonly drugged with such substances, researchers say. None. Yet it is doubtful that the purveyors of misandry in the sexual grievance industry will ever remove this hoax from their rape "facts" catalog, along with the two percent canard, and the one-in-four lie. One of the authors of the study referenced above explained: “Young women appear to be displacing their anxieties about the consequences of consuming what is in the bottle on to rumors of what could be put there by someone else . . . .”

What Fuels Rape Myths?

Rape is a particularly fertile subject for urban legends because there are few prospects scarier than being dragged into a dark alley and raped by someone more powerful than you, or having someone incapacitate you with the intention of ejaculating inside you, possibly impregnating you. The fact that such incidents are relatively rare (although, of course, one rape is one too many), especially outside the inner city, hasn't lessened the fear of the possibility. 

Rape urban legends are fueled by several things. For one thing, a culture of misandry has erupted on our national landscape in the past 30 years that makes it socially acceptable for women to be irrationally fearful of men and boys but of no other class of citizens. Law and order types, like Bob Dole and his Fed.R.Evid. 413, are largely responsible for this.

Sometimes rape fears are purposefully fomented by what is aptly called the sexual grievance industry. Some members of that industry teach our daughters that rape has become "normalized" in society's traditional notions of masculinity -- a concept that would be terribly insulting if it weren't so patently absurd. Rape is too common, to be sure, but blind outrage over rape, and a desire to protect women at all costs, are traits far more closely associated with masculinity than is a propensity to commit the crime of rape.  The vast majority of people understand this, but the sexual grievance industry keeps beating the tom-tom, seemingly in an effort to insult our collective intelligence.

Sometimes, the misinformation machine is blatant. In Britain, for example, the Stern Review last year debunked feminist claims that rape is not taken seriously and took issue with the government's long-standing use of the 6% attrition rate for alleged rape (the number of convictions as a percentage of number of reported crimes) as opposed to the 58% conviction rate (the number of convictions secured against the number of persons brought to trial for that given offence) that the government uses for all other crimes – murder, assault, robbery, and so on. The chasm between the rate that the government should have been using versus the one it was using -- 58% versus 6% -- represents a politicized dishonesty of Biblical proportions.

Importantly, the Stern Review noted that use of the attrition rate instead of the conviction rate "may well have discouraged some victims from reporting" their rapes. Read that again if it didn't sink in. Despite the Stern Review's well-publicized report, the prominent UK rape activist group, Women Against Rape, continues to wrongly state that "the conviction rate for rape is 5.7%."

Finally, an honest assessment about such rape urban myths also has to include this: they are largely fueled by the reports of real-life, and often frightening, rapes splashed across the news. If we want to reduce rape and rape fear mongering, and if we want to make false rape claims less plausible, we need to attack the root causes of rape itself.

Unfortunately, that's easier said than done. One thing is for certain: it won't be done by forcing college boys to attend rape indoctrination shame-fests that instruct them to subvert their imaginary socialized urges to harm women. Preaching to innocent young men never prevented a single rape. Yet, the persons who control the public discourse about rape are intent on channeling scarce resources to places where they are needed least: college campuses. The fact is, rarely do rapists resemble Ted Bundy or the clean-cut college boy home on Christmas break. 

The vast majority of rape offenders come from lower socioeconomic classes and are under-educated, under-employed, and under-skilled. See, among many others, Thornhill and Palmer, A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion; Batten, Sexual Strategies: How Females Choose Their Mates. In Against our Wills, Susan Brownmiller demonstrated that disadvantaged blacks comprise a greatly disproportionate percentage of rapists.

Why is that?  There is an unmistakable correlation between the absence of fathers from inner city homes and the prevalence of every social pathology that affects inner city kids, including rape. It turns out that when it comes to rape, "masculinity" isn't the problem at all; the problem is the absence of masculine role models. Some woefully misguided Great Society programs played a big part in removing fathers from inner city homes, but that's beyond the scope of this post.  The point is, if we want to reduce rape, we need to tackle, at long last, our great national shame: the social pathologies of the inner city. But neither political party seems to have much interest in doing that. A cynic might suggest the reason for this is that the one party is content to keep the inner city as cistern of dependence because it buys that party votes; and the other party is no less culpable as some of its members don't give a damn and see no political advantage to it in even addressing the problem. The truth is probably a tad less cynical: the problems of the inner city are so daunting, nobody knows what to do.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

For multiple generations now the Halloween Candy poisoning urban myth has been full blown without question.

Only one reported case has ever happened, and it was the child's own father trying to cash in on life insurance.

Yet every year the myth grows. Poisoning has morphed into sex offenders, with new laws and restrictions being imposed on masses of "offenders" - without a single crime ever having been committed.

slwerner said...

Pierce,
Along the lines of rape myths, I have something to share with you.
Since singing up with that petition site (to stop the SaVE Act), I’ve been getting emails urging me to sign every stinkin’ petition they host.

This one arrived just yesterday

”Dear Sxxxxxxx,
In a recent speech at the University of New Hampshire, Vice President Joe Biden recounted the story of a college freshman he called Jenny.
Jenny was raped after a party on campus. She tried to pursue a case against her rapist only to be asked if she had been drinking, what she was wearing, and whether she was dancing. The university never took action against her assailant.
As Biden said, "Rape is rape is rape."
Yet each year the FBI omits hundreds of thousands of rapes from its Uniform Crime Report (UCR) because it’s using an 80-year-old definition of rape.
The FBI’s outdated definition of rape is limited to "the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will."
Sign the petition to tell the FBI to update their definition to include all forms of rape.
The FBI’s flawed definition of rape excludes any form of sexual assault that falls outside of the narrowest understanding of heterosexual sex, including the rape of men and boys as well as transgender people.
The emphasis on "forcible" rape also means that the rape or assault of women with physical or mental disabilities and those who were unconscious or under the influence of drugs and alcohol – like Jenny -- are often excluded.
The FBI’s 2007 Uniform Crime Report listed 91,874 "forcible rapes," but some estimates suggest the actual number may be 24 times higher.
The FBI's underreporting of rapes translates to less federal funding for police departments nationwide to test rape kits -- and fewer investigators bringing rapists to justice.
Sign here to tell the FBI to update its definition of rape to address and end sexual assault:
http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-the-fbi-rape-is-rape
Thanks for taking action,
- Shelby and the Change.org team”


So, you can add these two rape myths:

• Rapes may occur 24 times more often than reported (this is actually the first time I’ve heard this one. ”96% go unreported” sure beats the old “60% go unreported” - on the "scary BS" scale, anyway.)

• The FBI omits hundreds of thousands of rapes from its Uniform Crime Report (when, in fact, that number, from reading the UCR guidance document, the number given is the total of all rapes, sexual assaults and attempted rapes. They are, however, correct that rapes of men and boys are being excluded).

Archivist said...

slw, thanks, as always. Help me with the UCR thing, if you can. Do you have a cite? We need to do a piece on that. It would be great if you could give us some guidance.

Archivist said...

Anon at 10:50: Halloween has gotten scary, in a real way, with all their fear-mongering the past few years. And all the fear mongering is always focused on males.

slwerner said...

Archivist - ” Help me with the UCR thing, if you can. Do you have a cite?”

UNIFORM CRIME REPORTS GUIDE MANUAL, pages 11-12:

FORCIBLE SEX OFFENSES
Any sexual act directed against another person, forcibly and/or against that person's will or not forcibly or against the person's will, where the victim is incapable of giving consent.

Forcible Rape—Committed
Forcible Rape—Attempted
Forcible Sodomy
Forcible Fondling
Indecent Liberties
Child Molesting


All these are counted towards the "Rape" number – which is down to
88,097 in 2009 (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.html), BTW.

[O if using the new and improved 96% unreported rate, 2,048,767 rapes – representing well over 1% of all women in the US. Meaning that, in 2009 for every 100 women, 1-2 of them got raped.]

Archivist said...

You are wonderful slw. Thanks.

slwerner said...

I don’t want to totally derail the thread, but as a follow-up regarding the way “Rapes” are reported via the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting system, it seems that they go to some lengths to bolster the numbers.

First, they are willing to overlook that some reports of crimes may be falsified. From their own UCR Methods of Quality Control:


• Not overlooking questionable reports: The algorithms should not miss any report that shows unlikely, unreasonable, or excessive deviations from the norm. Algorithms should pick all questionable reports. False negatives (overlooking unacceptable data) are not allowed. “
- page 9

Or, more to the point, False Positives (a.k.a. false reports) ARE allowed.

Secondly, they will estimate (more like ”guestimate”) if they don’t have complete data reports.

From their ”Table 1 & 1A, Data Declaration” (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01_dd.html)

” These tables contain statistics for the entire United States. Because not all law enforcement agencies provide data for complete reporting periods, the FBI includes estimated crime numbers in these presentations. The FBI estimates data for three areas: Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), cities outside MSAs, and nonmetropolitan counties. The FBI computes estimates for participating agencies not providing 12 months of complete data. For agencies supplying 3 to 11 months of data, the national UCR Program estimates for the missing data by following a standard estimation procedure using the data provided by the agency. If an agency has supplied less than 3 months of data, the FBI computes estimates by using the known crime figures of similar areas within a state and assigning the same proportion of crime volumes to nonreporting agencies. The estimation process considers the following: population size covered by the agency; type of jurisdiction, e.g., police department versus sheriff’s office; and geographic location.
In response to various circumstances, the FBI has estimated offense totals for some states. For example, some state UCR Programs do not provide forcible rape figures in accordance with UCR guidelines. In addition, problems at the state level have, at times, resulted in no useable data. Also, efforts to convert to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) have contributed to the need for unique estimation procedures.”

Any time date is estimated, there is the definite possibility (even probability) for abuse.

For example, looking at http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/about/table_methodology.html#offense, this “explanation” (just one of many) is given:

” Forcible rape figures for Rockford include only the forcible rape offenses with female victims that were extracted from the agency’s NIBRS data. To derive the state forcible rape estimate, the percentage of female forcible rape victims was extracted from all NIBRS incidents in which a forcible sex offense was reported. That percentage was applied to the forcible rape count received from the Illinois state UCR Program.”

Sounds to me like they felt that the Rockford PD was to “restrictive” so bumped the number of reported rapes up as described. (just my $0.02 on that one, of course).

Archivist said...

slw: Wow! Good work. And the potential for abuse is great, given how politicized the issues have become.

Anonymous said...

The gender-Raunch community who now dominate many American universities...want to re-define rape.
They want it to be anything any the "bipolar raunch queen" says it is.
And now American law enforcement can "pork bloat" their budgets on federal dollars, by engaging and fostering "womens inflammations of her hystera".
Pork = perversion.

Anonymous said...

Proper hunting game management to harvest as many deer as possible involves harvesting male deer, and not harvesting female deer (only a certain number can be killed each year).
By harvesting the males and letting the females go on to breed, this keeps the harvests high.
SAME WITH AMERICAN PORK BLOATED, PORK FEEDING, LAW ENFORCEMENT.
By just arresting violent men, and letting violent women go on to breed violent children...They keep the overall societal violence at an elevated level ....so law enforcement can "feed off, and PORK BLOAT their budgets...its kinda like their "Farming violence" by releasing violent women to go on and breed violent children.
We can call this the "perpetual Pork" cycle.

Anonymous said...

That petition reads:

"The emphasis on "forcible" rape also means that the rape or assault of women with physical or mental disabilities and those who were unconscious or under the influence of drugs and alcohol – like Jenny -- are often excluded."

Yet the UCR states:

"or not forcibly or against the person's will, where the victim is incapable of giving consent."

So the petition is lying.

And although anything has a potential for abuse, there is no evidence of that.

Also, keep in mind that UCR counts reports not unfounded, so that some, or perhaps many, of those reports counted are false is not dishonest, as it makes no claim to the contrary.

There are no perfect numbers. Ideally, the number of false positives and false negatives would cancel out. For example, counting the number of arrests would be a smaller more conservative number, but that number would both count arrests that turned out false, and not not count true reports where the alleged perpetrator wasn't arrested (for any number of reasons).

You can count the number of convictions, but again, you have similar problems with that number as well -- a combination of false positives and false negatives.

What is dishonest is claiming that counting the number of reports excludes crimes unreported, because that is already included in that number.

slwerner said...

Anonymous - ”So the petition is lying.”

Which is why I brought it up for consideration as another rape myth. Their argument that not all sexual assaults are being considered flies in the face of the rather “inclusive” nature of the UCR Guidance issued to law enforcement agencies.

What is likely not being counted is the number of men in prison reporting rapes, as published studies show a higher number of instance of prison rape than the UCR shows for “all” rapes, attempted rapes, and sexual assaults combined.

”And although anything has a potential for abuse, there is no evidence of that.”

Yes, there is no direct evidence of any politicized abuse (yet). But, why even attempt statistical manipulations to alter the numbers that are purported to be “raw” numbers (one has to do a bit of digging to find out that they are statistically manipulated numbers). A more honest/transparent way to report the numbers would be to report both the “unfiltered” raw numbers, and the (guestimated) calculated numbers side-by-side.

And, it’s not as if the UCR hasn’t been suffering from credibility issues already. One can easily note that in terms of “victim class”, Hispanic/Latino is separated out as a distinct grouping, whereas when assigning “perpetrator class” White/Caucasian and Hispanic/Latino are lumped together under the classification of “White”. Many have assailed the apparent racial motivations behind this disparity. So, it isn’t as thought the UCR is above suspicion.

” There are no perfect numbers.”

And, there will never be. It’s simply far to complicated to pull off. The main value of the UCR is to track the changing rates of crime over time, and to break out both crime rates and victimizations demographically (which, of course, angers the “Politically Correct”).

It’s an imperfect system, and the data should be used guardedly.

” What is dishonest is claiming that counting the number of reports excludes crimes unreported, because that is already included in that number.”

I don’t follow your logic here. Perhaps you could explain more?

But, it does beg the question about the supposed “unreported rate”.

For some time, we have been hearing that undocumented, and unscientific approaches (to call them “studies” would be disingenuous) have calculated that about 60% of rapes are not reported. It’s a dubious number, but one that can be considered a possibility (there are certainly a significant number of rapes which do go unreported, for a variety of reasons). However, within this particular petition, we are now introduced to a new (and improved) number of some 96% of rapes going unreported (that “24 times greater than reported” claim).

Its seems that what they are arguing (as, really, they have been for a long time now) is that the number of unreported rapes so outnumbers and over-whelms the number of false rape claims that the latter OUGHT to be entirely ignored. It’s sort of an argument of “Who cares about the harm to a handful of men when millions of woman are left suffering in silence”. An entirely emotional appeal (over logic, and even plausibility) that sadly works for a majority of woman.

Anonymous said...

"” What is dishonest is claiming that counting the number of reports excludes crimes unreported, because that is already included in that number.”

I don’t follow your logic here. Perhaps you could explain more?"

I'm too busy right now to get into a long discussion about statistics, but in general, the UCR counts the number of reports as the number of crimes. Not all reports are true, and not all crimes are reported. You can't count the number of non-reports ("false negatives"), but you can count the number of false reports. This is true for any crime.

As far as feminists claiming "96% of rapes going unreported" that's just a made-up number that has no place in a rational discussion.

slwerner said...

Anonymous - ”Not all reports are true, and not all crimes are reported. You can't count the number of non-reports ("false negatives"), but you can count the number of false reports. This is true for any crime.”

I think that the only point of disagreement I have with what you posted earlier is that you seem to be assuming that the number of false reports and the number of non-reports would cancel each other out.

They might, but I don’t think that it is a reliable assumption. Supposing Kanin is right, and the number of false rape reports is ~40%, and assuming that the SGI is right, and unreported rapes are about 60% (meaning that only 40% of rapes are reported), you would not have a balance between them.

But, that’s really beside the point. The UCR number id critically flawed in that category of “Rapes” includes not only rapes, but also attempted rapes, child molestation, sexual assaults, and even a seemingly very board category of “Indecent Liberties” – the latter three details as:

The touching of the private body parts of another person, using either an object or human contact to commit the act, for the purpose of sexual gratification

in the reporting guidance document. (So, some guy grabbing a woman’s breast or butt could be the (statistical) equivalent of a woman being kidnapped and violently raped at knife-point in the bushes).

Since the incidents being reported by law enforcement agency are likely much more sub-categorized, an more honest and transparent way for the DOJ to present their numbers would be to break-out the “Rape” category into sub-categories (perhaps in a separate table).

In that they chose to keep that wide spectrum of reported crimes lumped together as “Rape” indicates to me that they are attempting to create the impression that there are far more actual rapes that what are actually reported (which seems rather a “politicized abuse” to me).

Anonymous said...

That the word "rape" is used to describe things other than what Whoopi Goldberg would call "rape rape" is across the board. If you look in the local statutes the word "rape" is rarely, if ever, used. Perhaps it should be renamed "sexual assault". Although I agree that it is inflammatory and misleading to the less educated, and it would be helpful if more specific tallies were published. And they were, and unfounded reports excluded were counted as well, until 1996 or so, as far as I remember.

"Supposing Kanin is right, and the number of false rape reports is ~40%, and assuming that the SGI is right, and unreported rapes are about 60% (meaning that only 40% of rapes are reported), you would not have a balance between them."

I wouldn't assume either. Kanin only counted those who admitted they lied, and the SGI is about as reliable a source of information as someone living out of a shopping cart.

Yet just hypothetically, lets say a quarter of those were violent sexual assaults, and half of those reports were false, is 11,000 unreported rapes a year that wildly implausible?

Maybe it is.

The bottom line is that there is simply no accurate way to count the number of crimes that aren't reported, and for the obvious reason.

Anonymous said...

Think of all of the myths that instigated, perpetuated, propigated and fueled the pedophilia urban legends.

Anonymous said...

'Candyman' is far too dignified to become real merely because some self-serving, truth-challenged feminists need him to be.