~ archived since 2018 ~

When even NPR squashes the 1 in 5 rape number, it's propaganda value is pretty seriously dead.

osbe

December 12, 2014

558 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.npr.org/2014/12/11/370156326/justice-department-numbers-paint-different-picture-of-sexual-assault

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	When even NPR squashes the 1 in 5 rape number, it's propaganda value is pretty seriously dead.
Author	osbe
Upvotes	558
Comments	93
Date	December 12, 2014 12:24 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2p117o/when_even_npr_squashes_the_1_in_5_rape_number_its/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/when-even-npr-squashes-the-1-in-5-rape-number-its.992219 https://theredarchive.com/post/992219

Comments

[–]See-9 71 points72 points73 points 11 years ago* (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlueDoorFour 22 points23 points24 points 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]See-9 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlueDoorFour 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sendmeloveletters 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]See-9 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sendmeloveletters 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]See-9 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Men13 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Wait, that definition is very weird to me:

Rape is the unlawful penetration of a person against the will of the victim, with use or threatened use of force, or attempting such an act. Rape includes psychological coercion and physical force, and forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by the offender.

(my emphasis)

Note the lack of talk about consent. I mean - of course the use of force / threats implies non-consent. But there are a lot of non-consent which don't involve force / threats.

For example the very popular "they were too drunk to consent" in this case seems not to be considered rape. That is weird to me as it deviates a lot from the narrative of campus rape.

Also, the date rape drug might not be counted here either as it incapacitates the victim without physical force, nor psychological coercion.

For that matter, dressing up as the person's regular sex partner and, tricking them into having sex, isn't considered rape here either although it very clearly is (the only reason I bring this example up is that it is featured in the "revenge of the nerds" movie, although it isn't considered rape there either).

So playing devil's advocate, I would have to say that people defending the 1 in 5 number could legitimately rebut this by saying it doesn't cover "all rapes" (where rape is "sex without consent"), but only covers the badly-named "forcible rape" (rapes where the lack of consent was overcome using physical force / threats and not, for example, using drugs or other means)

[–]lafielle 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I realise you're just playing devil's advocate, so let me counter:

Using drugs to sedate someone and then having sex with them, or even simply having sex with someone who is unconscious or sleeping always falls under physical coercion. In this case, the sex act itself is the force used, and the act is clearly against the will of the victim.

"Too drunk to consent" doesn't exist.

The five football supporters in my train who were so drunk that they collectively pissed in a pram while a baby was sleeping in it did not get "forced" to do it, even if they encouraged one another. They did it because they chose to while drunk.

That "alcohol loving" relative of yours who thought it would be hilarious to toss the television through the living room window did not get "forced" to do it, even if that annoying cousin 'dared' him to do it. They did it because they chose to while drunk.

And that drunk college student who blew the ugly-guy-she'd-never-even-consider-while-sober in the middle of the bar because he persistently kept begging her to do so. They did it because they chose to while drunk.

For people who are unconscious due to overconsumption of alcohol, see my earlier point.

The dressing up example... Most people can tell apart their regular sex partners from random strangers. I'm not saying a blind and deaf man might not be fooled into thinking some woman who dresses, smells and feels exactly like his wife and who has the same height and body type could not be deceived in theory, but there is simply no possible way in which this scenario could have any meaningful effect on national rape statistics.

I'll add that this definition also doesn't include "speech rape" where a man talks to a woman without her permission, "eye rape" where a man looks at a woman without her permission or "thought rape" where a man thinks about a woman without her permission.

The reason these things aren't included is because they aren't rape.

Cue /u/Everything_Is_Rape

[–]Men13 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

When discussing the "too drunk to consent" you are giving examples of when the drunk people instigate the actions.

And I know a lot of "everything is rape" people will consider "she was drunk and came to your room and started touching you and convinced you to have sex with her" as rape

However, there is a "too drunk to consent" where what we are really talking about is consenting, as in not instigating the actions, but being a passive participant when someone else does because you're too drunk to even know what's going on.

In that way it's much closer to the "unconscious" case. They might still be technically conscious but not able to initiate anything nor consent / fight / even be aware of anything.

And still you call that "physical coercion", which I agree it is. But physical coercion isn't part of that definition! That's what's so perplexing to me:

They talk about coercion, but specifically assert only psychological coercion (blackmail for example? threats of suicide? shaming them into it?)

They talk about force, but specifically only physical force.

I have no idea what their actual methodology is. Maybe they do consider "everything=rape". But since this is (hopefully) a way to debunk the "1 in 5" number, such bad language will prevent it from "sticking" :(

[–]Mikeavelli 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lafielle 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Thanks for the continued discussion, its good to hone our arguments thoroughly!

When discussing the "too drunk to consent" you are giving examples of when the drunk people instigate the actions.

Let's say a man kissed his date after a wonderful evening in which she had a lot to drink. She is drunk, but not incapacitated (if she was, the unconscious rule would apply, and she'd already fall under the given definition of rape). She is thus capable of resisting and objecting. In this scenario, she chooses not to (if she did, it'd be against her will and she'd fall under the given definition of rape) and she allows him to kiss her, she allows him to take her inside, she allows him to undress her, she allows him to have sex with her, and after they are both done, she goes to sleep.

Was she raped? Not by the definition given. And I would say that indeed she was not!

Now, since she didn't do anything, he used some level of force against her: specifically undressing her and putting his penis inside of her. However it was not against her will (and thus not rape by the above definition), because she allowed him to do so, that is, she was capable of objecting but chose not to.

You might argue that a woman might be so afraid at being kissed / undressed / whatever that she is unable to react, but if she was afraid, then there must have been some type of threat (i.e. coercion), and therefore the case falls within the definition.

Now, the 1-in-5 people may consider this rape, but clearly the woman herself does not (otherwise she'd have objected). I'm inclined to go with her judgement, impaired or not.

Just because I define "breathing air on the same planet as a man" as "being raped" doesn't mean 100% of living women are raped day and night.

And still you call that "physical coercion", which I agree it is. But physical coercion isn't part of that definition! That's what's so perplexing to me:

I may have chosen my words carelessly there, but I believe physical coercion is exactly the same thing as physical force. With physical coercion you use physical power to do something to someone. That requires force. Thus, I believe it is within the definition.

It seems you disagree, so I would ask you to explain to me exactly what is the difference between physical force and physical coercion, according to you.

They talk about coercion, but specifically assert only psychological coercion (blackmail for example? threats of suicide? shaming them into it?)

Holding someone down is physical force / physical coercion. Putting a gun to their head and telling them to lay still is psychological coercion.

Psychological coercion might also include a verbal threat to kill their child or loved one if they don't cooperate for example, even with no weapon visible.

They talk about force, but specifically only physical force.

Isn't all force is physical? I mean, you might argue they could use magnetism or something, but even if that was a realistic scenario, I think any reasonable person would count that as physical force even if its technically a magnetic force.

I have no idea what their actual methodology is. Maybe they do consider "everything=rape". But since this is (hopefully) a way to debunk the "1 in 5" number, such bad language will prevent it from "sticking" :(

I don't think it will prevent it from sticking.

This study says 6 in 1000 students are victims of rape or attempted rape by their definition. The everything=rape people say it is 1 in 5 which is 200 in 1000 students.

That means that those who challenge this study by the definition used believe there are 194 in 1000 students who were raped by some means that did not include with use or threatened use of force, nor psychological coercion.

I would love to see anyone try to explain what exactly happened to those 194 in 1000 students that doesn't fit the definition of the justice department.

[–]Oragagashi 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Men13 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]doomsought 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Men13 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mikeavelli 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

From The study

Definitions of rape and sexual assault. The NCVS, NISVS, and CSA target different types of events. The NCVS definition is shaped from a criminal justice perspective and includes threatened, attempted, and completed rape and sexual assault against males and females (see Methodology). The NISVS uses a broader definition of sexual violence, which specifically mentions incidents in which the victim was unable to provide consent due to drug or alcohol use; forced to penetrate another person; or coerced to engage in sexual contact (including nonphysical pressure to engage in sex) unwanted sexual contact (including forcible kissing, fondling, or grabbing); and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences that do not involve physical contact.4 The CSA definition of rape and sexual assault includes unwanted sexual contact due to force and due to incapacitation, but excludes unwanted sexual contact due to verbal or emotional coercion.5

The Survey which specifically takes into account unable to provide consent due to drug or alcohol use is this one

And the rate of violence is also quite low.

[–]Men13 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Took me a while to find the origin of your quote.

Unfortunately it's a bad quote: it comes from a section about

Comparing the NCVS and other surveys that measure rape and sexual assault in a college-age population

and NOT from how they did their own study.

While looking for your quote I also tried to see how they did their study:

From the introduction

The findings are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

so NOT from the NISVS (which you quoted as including drug/alcohol use).

Rape and sexual assault are defined by the NCVS to include [...] (see methodology)

From the methodology we get the original quote I was referring to.

It is very clear from the text that they are AWARE NISVS and NCVS have different definitions for rape, but that they used the NCVS data and NOT the NISVS data.

From the differences you can find:

from appendinx 1 (emphasis mine)

Penetration due to coercion is included in the definition of rape, but the survey does not specifically ask about incidents in which the victim was unable to provide consent because of drug or alcohol consumption.

What does NISVS include which NCVS doesn't include? They don't answer it directly, but they do give a list of what each includes so I'll just present here what is in NISVS but isn't in NCVS:

[threatened, attempted, or completed rape] including incidents in which the victim was unable to provide consent due to drug or alcohol use; [only the part in the brackets is in both definitions]
sexual coercion, which includes nonphysical pressure to engage in sex;
unwanted sexual contact, including forcible kissing, fondling, or grabbing;
noncontact unwanted sexual experiences, which do not involve physical contact.

So as you can see, given that they only use the NCVS definition and NOT the NISVS definition, they almost certainly DON'T consider "too drunk to consent" as rape, as well as non-physical pressure.

I'm not trying to say which definition is correct. I do admit that now reading the actual study I find their definition of rape / sexual assault to be too narrow for my taste (a boss threatening to fire you if you don't have sex with them doesn't seem to be considered rape here)

What I am saying is that this is a very bad study to use in the debunking of the 1:5 number, as the methodology is worded in such a way as to allow anyone to dismiss it outright.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mushybees 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BlueDoorFour 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]captain_craptain 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BlueDoorFour 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]captain_craptain 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BlueDoorFour 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]See-9 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]nofvtvre -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]COYAD 23 points24 points25 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cthulu2013 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]caesarkid1 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cthulu2013 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Teacher: "1 in 5 women will be raped, and reports are saying it's increasing"

I love how even the original inflated number gets even more inflated when it's repeated. the (debunked) study claimed 1/5 college women are the victims of sexual assault or attempted sexual assault. for the record, sexual assault includes more than rapes. attempted sexual assaults aren't even sexual assaults. yet in your teacher's mind, it's all rape.

i had the exact same conversation with a friend of a friend last year, she was using the one in four number. "1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted (raped)". every time she said sexual assault she'd put rape in parenthesis. she said she was an advocate too, so you know she was repeating her misinformation. she said she got the number from her psychologist, who specializes in treating victims. i asked her to ask him where he got the number from, never heard back.

[–]Cthulu2013 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]WeHaveIgnition 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]caesarkid1 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]captain_craptain 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mitthrawnuruodo1337 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]captain_craptain 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mitthrawnuruodo1337 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cthulu2013 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]captain_craptain 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Cthulu2013 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As much as I like to stick it to the feminist agenda here and there.. What really grated on me was how it took away from true rape victims, I've seen it first hand and it was traumatizing, emptying and dark for ME. The effects of a true refusal to ones most intimate rights is soul stripping, it was heart wrenching to see someone close to me go through that, she's a real survivor of rape(after subsequent suicide attempts from the rape). Therefore she is special, and her pain is not to be muddied by weak individuals who cannot hold agency over themselves in the face of assertive individuals or under the influence.

If a drunk driver kills someone they're fully accountable, a drunk girl fucks someone and suddenly they're a victim. Horse shit, come back to me when you're held down and your clothes are ripped off and you're left to die by a stranger, then you'll be able to stand among the survivors that make up TRUE rape victims.

I get upset when people want to be special by association, because they have no redeeming qualities, they cling to victimhood to garner attention and self importance.

[–]Hanzo44 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]68696c6c 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PyroSign 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]captain_craptain 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]COYAD 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]captain_craptain 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WeHaveIgnition 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]COYAD 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DavidByron2 50 points51 points52 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Fuck__The__Cavs 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PierceHarlan 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]matt_themartyr 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]comehitherhitler 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

Let's put it this way. Did NPR use the 1-in-5 lie after it was thoroughly debunked but before this DOJ report? Yes. Would they use it if they felt they could still get away with it? Probably. Hell, they could have debunked it themselves at any time, but chose not to.

There is no such thing as a completely reliable source of journalism. There are news sources that take a slant you generally agree with and news sources you generally disagree with. If an outlet is printing the truth it's more or less a coincidence because they are not rigorous in determining whether their own sources are reliable. This is a fundamental failure of the industry that transcends partisanship.

Edit: Here are examples of the heavy bias and narrative pushing just from this radio snippet -

LYNN LANGTON: About a quarter of folks say that they didn't report because the incident was a personal matter. And about 20 percent said that they were afraid. They were afraid to report.

TOVIA SMITH: For most, it was a fear of reprisal.

We're told that ~25% of those who didn't report did so because they didn't want to. Smith then adds that "most" didn't because of fear of reprisal. We're given the number who are afraid to report and it's lower than the number who just didn't want to. How does Smith get from 20% were afraid to "most" were afraid, and why doesn't she take a sentence or two to explain this? The report isn't going anywhere. We can give the benefit of the doubt and assume this is just shitty writing and editing.

Then we have seemingly the only voice on the hyper-skeptical side of the issue. He's quoted once - to say that the 1-in-5 stat was clearly nonsense and that the DOJ report is just more evidence - and never again. Since his statement was immediately repeated by the next person contacted for comment his inclusion was pointless, but it gives the illusion of impartiality. I suspect he might have had something unfavorable to say about the next sentiment the article drops (attributed to no one in particular, of course):

Privately, some advocates say they're concerned about this report coming at the same time that questions are being raised about a Rolling Stone account of an alleged campus rape. They worry it'll give ammunition to those who want to sweep campus sexual assault under the rug.

That's the concern that NPR chooses to give voice. That the morally and professionally corrupt might get more ammunition from uncomfortable evidence. No wonder we needed to switch to a new interviewee. Incidentally, since Scott Berkowitz's name is the very next one mentioned - in the same paragraph - we are lead to assume he is one such person privately expressing the above concern. Why this isn't stated outright is beyond me. And nowhere in this story about college sexual assault are the DOE's directives regarding campus tribunals or the general hysteria present on campuses mentioned. Not once.

Again, we can always give the benefit of the doubt to journalists. We can assume they are simply bad at their jobs rather than malicious. But the facts, statements, statistics, and people tapped for comment which point to a certain conclusion are given greater emphasis and conspicuous specificity. It paints a clear picture of an author/editor/broadcaster's personal bias and shows what kind of framework they want the audience to view the issue through.

Edit2: Looking through the study it seems Smith's "For most, it was a fear of reprisal" comment is one of those outright fabrications. Unless she's privy to exactly what "other reasons (31%) for not reporting" means in the study and it supports that claim, but I doubt it.

[–]matt_themartyr 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]comehitherhitler 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sockmess 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mitthrawnuruodo1337 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]matt_themartyr 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mitthrawnuruodo1337 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]xNOM 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Hamakua 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]peacegnome 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ImNotIntoPokemon 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arakin 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cyhawk 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Starkest 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arakin 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Popeychops 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Keiichi81 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mel_Gibsons_Sanity 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]WeHaveIgnition 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mel_Gibsons_Sanity 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Mel_Gibsons_Sanity 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]robo_octopus 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nulono 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jostler57 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrilliantDynamitesNe 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]newprofile15 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeffmacentire -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mikeavelli 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DanDanDannn 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thelandofdreams 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]captain_craptain 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link