Support NeoGAF

[kirblar]

Nobody's fact checks anything anymore I suppose. Just throw it out there. Wonderful

Always been that way. No one reads the corrections a week later.

 

[Mrmartel]

Always been that way. No one reads the corrections a week later.

That's what pisses me off, all politicians of all stripes do this constantly. Then the news cycle moves forward and everyone buys whatever was previously said. Hence why I stopped using statistics as much as possible in debates and can't stand people that do use them. They seem to be either contradictions or are dispelled as BS shortly after they emerge.

 

[Guileless]

A "cold spike of fear" sounds like a major boner killer.

Did the Catholic Church not already trademark that?

 

[Cybit]

The rates he quoted were still from a different time frame (one year) than the percentage he quoted (over four or five years).

But I'm at work, so I may have misread something.

Also, we have many different studies being referenced here. Can you do me a favor in the future: Link to a pdf (or at least quote the title) when you say "the 2009 analysis" or "2005" or "2009" so I know we're talking about the same things, and quote from and link to where specific studies are described as flawed or as used out of context?

To try to recap, it was the study from 2005 - 2007 whose lead author said could not be used as nationally representative ("It comes from a 2007 study funded by the National Institute of Justice, called the Campus Sexual Assault Study, or CSA," from Yoffe's piece); the study from 2000 was the one which tried to multiply rates. In the Politifact article (which the New Republic article I linked to links to), similar criticisms are raised about the 2007 study. It also references that absurd attempt to derive cumulative numbers by multiplying rates when it referencing the 1996 Sexual Victimization of College Women survey; just to make things more difficult this study is referred to as the "2000 study" in Yoffe's article (it came out in 2000, but the data is from 1996). It also references several other studies with similar numbers: There is the nationally-representative 2007 Medical University of South Carolina study, mentioned in the New Republic article, which says that 11.5 percent of college-aged women have "ever been raped", but that is a lifetime number. There is also the CDC number, also lifetime, which says that

So, to make sure we're on the same page:

1996 | 2000 : Measures rates of rape among college students, finds a rate of 1.7% for completed and 1.1% for attempted rape over a 6.91 month period while a student; did not measure rates cumulatively, though does make an ill-advised attempt at multiplying rates and comes to an estimate of 20 to 25 percent.
2005 - 2007 | 2007 : Finds that among college women surveyed at two Midwestern colleges, 13.7 percent reported a sexual assault since they had begun their schooling.
2009: Additional data for the above study, which says that, specifically among seniors, almost 20% experienced some type of sexual assault since the start of their schooling. Study author (and other experts) advise against using number generally due to its not being nationally representative
2007 : This is the 2007 Medical University of South Carolina study, which found that 11.5 percent of college-aged women "have ever been raped"; they estimate a number of 18.0 percent for the general population. This study is nationally representative, but doesn't ask specifically about sexual assaults or rape that occurred while a student
2010 : The CDC study, which found a rate of 18.3 percent lifetime for all women for completed rape. This study may represent an undercount, as it doesn't cover vulnerable populations like individuals under the age of 18, the homeless, the hospitalized, prisoners, or people in residential treatment programs.

So, we have a studies are representative and studies that aren't; studies that focus on college students annually and college students lifetime, but don't ask about college students' experiences specifically at college; studies that ask about students' experiences specifically on campus but do so over a short time frame (6.91 months) and / or aren't nationally representative. And we have numbers for both "sexual assault" and "rape" and "sexual assault" is by necessity defined more broadly than is "rape." And we have to keep this in mind:



So, it can be very difficult to have an apples-to-apples comparison of studies about the experience of college students at college because there are so many different questions being asked and time frames being used. It's better with general population numbers; the lifetime rates for forcible rape, at least, tend to fall in a pretty consistent 12 - 15%-ish (give or take a couple points for the outliers) range; and the annual rates for forcible rape tend to also be in the 0.5 - 0.7% range, for instance.

Yeah; the linking to individual studies might be a good idea; even I'm starting to get confused at different studies, as well as updates to other studies.

The more I read them, the more I think the real data issues come down to a few key points; I'll list them in what I think is probably the order of significance

1) Defining sexual assault / rape and the questions. This sounds extremely dumb, but I suspect a lot of the differences in percentages are because the questions being asked are different, and define assault differently (and ask more or less questions). Add in that the FBI started using a different definition of rape in 2012 (previously it required penetration, and it was impossible for women to rape men under the old FBI definition), and you can sort of see how same studies come up with completely different numbers.

2) Societal purity bullshit; IE, the demonization of women who have sex. This means folks are innately conditioned not to talk about it. Well, if you think 70% of your total data set isn't being reported...might make representative statistics reaaaaaally difficult to come up with accurately.

3) Pre-existing agendas for the people involved - because of the nature of the crime and the depth of neglect this country has had for rape victims; you can sort of see where the studies are going to be tilted either one way or the other. Especially now with the rancor and demonization of everyone involved on all sides of the issue - anyone challenging the status quo is going to be slandered and destroyed publicly. (see Cosby until recently for one extreme and UVA for another). What's up Ezra Klein?

Based on history; I agree with Yoffe. The US has a pretty solid history of neglecting something until it is entirely too late, then trying to overcompensate when they finally feel bad about it. (Columbine and terrorism would be two recent examples, as would educational spending). It's hard to argue stats about this stuff in general because frankly, we really don't have any good stats on the matter - and now no one wants to even dare challenge the stats because they will be tarred as being "misogynstic / misandrist and a rape apologist or SJW" or whatever BS people come up with nowadays.

 

[Two Words]

I always felt like the 1 in 4 women statistic being correct isn't very important. The point is that rape in college isn't an anomalous experience and should be treated as a serious issue.

 

[kirblar]

I always felt like the 1 in 4 women statistic being correct isn't very important. The point is that rape in college isn't an anomalous experience and should be treated as a serious issue.

It is when people are trying to suggest policy based around it. The reality is bad enough. Making up stuff to "enhance" it isn't necessary.

 

[Guileless]

Imagine the reaction if a high-profile neoconservative data-driven site cited such a statistic as justification for a highly intrusive legal regime designed to work by instilling a "cold spike of fear" into citizens who are engaging in what was once viewed as highly private behavior. Also imagine federal agencies aggressively enforcing the regime and a highly charged climate discouraging dissent.

Perhaps not coincidentally, pragmatic neocons support affirmative consent laws.

 

[Tom_Cody]

I just finished reading the article this morning. Lots of thoughts (and emotions) but I want to read through the thread before I decide if I want to add anything here.

This is such an uncomfortable topic to talk about. Of course everyone wants to be on the side of the alleged victim and not the alleged perpetrator, but so much of what is being done just seems absurd. Some of the cases presented in the article are almost unbelievable. The ideology that has given rise to "affirmative consent laws" is completely divorced from reality.

 

[Stet]

I just finished reading the article this morning. Lots of thoughts (and emotions) but I want to read through the thread before I decide if I want to add anything here.

This is such an uncomfortable topic to talk about. Of course everyone wants to be on the side of the alleged victim and not the alleged perpetrator, but so much of what is being done just seems absurd. Some of the cases presented in the article are almost unbelievable. The ideology that has given rise to "affirmative consent laws" is completely divorced from reality.

The cases presented in the article ARE unbelievable. That's why they're there. People are harping on how much statistics can be manipulated, but they're accepting the worst of the worst as though they're the norm. They're specifically chosen to push a narrative.

 

[Tom_Cody]

The cases presented in the article ARE unbelievable. That's why they're there. People are harping on how much statistics can be manipulated, but they're accepting the worst of the worst as though they're the norm. They're specifically chosen to push a narrative.

Very true, but the issue is more complicated than that. The examples given demonstrate a very broken (and expanding) system that seems to be based more on ideology and emotion than reason. The descriptions of "affirmative consent laws" are nauseating. Have any of these people ever had sex before?

That said, the number of falsely accused men is surely a tiny fraction of the number of women who are victims of rape and sexual assault. Those are obviously a much bigger problem. I tried to keep that in mind as I read the article, but I still had a stronger emotional reaction to those examples than I had expected. :/

Even if these people represent a small number, why defend a system that is broken? I don't see how anyone is best served by these processes. Isn't there a way to help women other than a system that assumes the guilt of any man accused?

 

[Guileless]

The cases presented in the article ARE unbelievable. That's why they're there. People are harping on how much statistics can be manipulated, but they're accepting the worst of the worst as though they're the norm. They're specifically chosen to push a narrative.

No human system is perfect of course, and all of us are susceptible to corruption and abuse of power. The critics' point here is that these examples demonstrate how the drafters and enforcers of this system WANT it to work. This is the system working as it was designed to do, and they see no problem with these examples.