SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

The stat is one out of three women. Meaning that Frankiesbeads is correct and the probability is quite high. It shouldn't be that high, it's not right that it's that high - but it is that high. That is still a reality many of us live with.

It is important to deal with false rape accusations - but too often, especially in the wake of MeToo, that's what's used to derail the discussion about the ongoing realities of sexual assault and abuse. It honestly appears that society as a whole AND the justice system in particular worries a LOT more about persecuting innocent people than about the much more numerous real survivors.

Considering most of the women I know who have been assaulted have never seen even a smidgen of justice, and considering that this is a common story told by survivors, I'd say it continues to be a problem that needs to be addressed.

[This message edited by silverhopes at 9:11 PM, August 13th (Monday)]

See, that's the thing. Boys and men get sexually assaulted too. Just like boys and men are victims of domestic homicide too. The victims of both those crimes are disproportionately women, but there are still victims of all different genders and backgrounds.

So why not address both of those problems? Why not take them seriously? No, it won't be easy to find a solution or a plethora of solutions - but does that mean we should just ignore it happening? I think I read a statistic stating that the American soldiers killed in the Middle East during a period of 11 years was around 6K, and the number of women killed by their partners or former partners during that same period was like 11K - and that's not even tallying the number of men killed by their partners. So, more people being murdered by their partners than dying in wars. Yeah, that's serious! And those are the folks who were murdered, for whom help came too late. That's not counting the still-living survivors who are enduring domestic abuse, and all the obstacles in their way of "just leaving".

These are issues that affect both men and women. So why not work on solutions? It can only help both men and women, right?

Sorry but it's not 33% of women (in the US) are raped. You really think we have such a pandemic of violence greater than war zones?

The common number bandied about (20%) is usually everything - from rape to catcalls.

In fact the most recent survey labeled grabbing a butt, or any unwanted touching, as "sexual assault." This is a broadening of the definintion, which 20 years ago it was not

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/RevisedInstrumentModules_1_21_16_cleanCombined_psg.pdf

Even then, most of the schools in the survey, <10% of female students reported sexual assault; rapes, <5% at most of the schools. Then there is the issue that this survey was only done at 9 schools (only one had the 20% assault reporting -which of course, is what gets cited by the media/various groups).

(Side note: the rates reported at these colleges was less than what the FBI has for the general population, so campuses are not more prone to rape/assault

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf)

What's even more ludicrous is that sexual violence is reported to have declined by 60% from 1995 to 2014. So does that mean nearly EVERY woman was raped in the 80s (based on the 20%)? Cmon...

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4927

Yes, women are harassed/attacked way more than they should be, but that's no reason to inflate numbers or create scares to justify one's position (don't abuse women). It's just fear mongering.

If you really thought your daughters stood a 50:50 (or even a 1 in 3) chance of being raped, would you even let them out of the house?

I sure as hell wouldn't let my daughters out without serious firepower.

American soldiers killed in the Middle East during a period of 11 years was around 6K, and the number of women killed by their partners or former partners during that same period was like 11K

I 100% agree with your premise - all victims should be helped/adressed.

But since we are talking statistics...

this statistic (or the similar one talking about kids killed vs combat vets) is horrible. One is comparing the homicide rate of a Co u try of 330 MILLION, to a military population of about 1 million. Of course the 330 million people are going to have more deaths. It's comparing apples to rocks (not even another fruit)

You really think we have such a pandemic of violence greater than war zones?

Not think. Stats I read. I will read yours too.

Yes, women are harassed/attacked way more than they should be, but that's no reason to inflate numbers or create scares to justify one's position (don't abuse women). It's just fear mongering.

If the numbers are being inflated, I would have no way to prove or disprove that. I guess neither of us have a way to prove or disprove the accuracy of our stats, do we? So OK, you say numbers are inflated and fear-mongering is happening, and you also say that women are harassed and attacked way more than they should be. You also say that your solution is guns. Despite that not all of us are allowed to own firearms. And despite that some of us get killed by our own firearms - you're talking about avoiding getting attacked on the streets, but for MANY of us, the people attacking us aren't strangers on the streets - they're our own partners or other family members. So what do you suggest we do about THAT?

If you really thought your daughters stood a 50:50 (or even a 1 in 3) chance of being raped, would you even let them out of the house?

Not like we have a choice; it's called living. And for some of us, being outside of our homes is a LOT safer than being inside of them.

I appreciate that you want to verify the accuracy of stats. But I'm more curious to know, do you think these are overall legitimate concerns we should be addressing (as a society)? Or do you think if the stats were lower, than this would mean the subject needs to be dropped?

this statistic (or the similar one talking about kids killed vs combat vets) is horrible. One is comparing the homicide rate of a Co u try of 330 MILLION, to a military population of about 1 million. Of course the 330 million people are going to have more deaths. It's comparing apples to rocks (not even another fruit)

OK. You seem to really put a lot of value into stats. What comparison makes sense? Do we even need a comparison, or would a number alone suffice? At what point, or at what stat, does something become important or an issue in your opinion?

Sorry, one more ETA...

In fact the most recent survey labeled grabbing a butt, or any unwanted touching, as "sexual assault." This is a broadening of the definintion, which 20 years ago it was not

This is why the stat I looked up was about murders. It is very hard to narrow or broaden the definition of death statistics - those are quite final and unchanging. With a death statistic, there's no question that a wrong was done.

[This message edited by silverhopes at 10:18 PM, August 13th (Monday)]

OK, I see now, you were responding to the stat I saw about 1/3 of women being survivors of sexual assault (a stat I saw a long while ago, admittedly - think 10 years ago on a billboard on my way to work). You were saying that the numbers have changed, and that there has been a 60% decline between 1995 and 2010. That's good news. I'd make better sense of that if I could see numbers per year. Do you have an idea of where I could find those numbers? I'm asking you because you seem very focused on stats, so perhaps you could show me a reputable source.

The first two sources you cited were about college assaults in particular. But what about general society stats? What about those of us who aren't in college? Are you citing college stats because that's where the highest instance of reported assaults are? Though you did say that the FBI says those stats are lower than the average. So what's the average? And why did you start with college assault stats instead of general stats?

ETA: billboard, not bulletin board. One's bigger and a lot more public than the other lol

[This message edited by silverhopes at 10:28 PM, August 13th (Monday)]

FBI stats. Pretty reliable, I'd say.

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317

Thank you. It's going to take me a while to read through and make sense of all the stats, so I appreciate you giving me that source.

I will say, as I'm reading through, the thing that saddens me is, despite the Bureau of Justice's thoroughness, there's no way their stats will ever be truly accurate. There will always be victims - both male and female - who do not come forward to report the crimes against them, and as such, the crimes won't be documented or counted. And, there are those who will be accused of false accusations, and so those crimes won't be counted either. Or they'll be filed under "domestic dispute" instead of domestic assault. Sometimes they really are false accusations - and sometimes, they aren't. I wonder how we measure those? What I've heard is that there are more folks who are falsely accused of making false accusations, than there are folks who are rightly accused of making false accusations - but are there any stats about that?

[This message edited by silverhopes at 10:53 PM, August 13th (Monday)]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but not to their own facts.

To answer your questions:

I cited the campus one, because that is where the media/women's groups got the 20% number. That ONE school gets cited as if it applied to the whole country; it didn't even apply to the whole study let alone the entire US.

You talked about proving or disproving stats. Sometimes, just applying common sense is a good way to check a stat. Do you really think if 20% of women were being raped, it wouldn't be a major catastrophe and front page news every day? If 20% of houses in your neighborhood were being burglarized, you'd know it, and it would be a horror show. Heck, <0.1% of people get shot in Chicago - but it's a big deal.

There is the old adage: there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Of course one rape is too many, and the effects are devastating (as much as my ex is a POS, I believe a lot (the root) of her issues stemmed from a date rape when she was 17, and never really dealt with it).

But citing bad statistics to scare people (campus rape epidemic!!!) to get them to institute some desired policy (no due process for accused rapists), is not the way to go about addressing the problem.

But of course some women's "rights" groups would have you believe women are being stalked and preyed upon with impunity - even though crime, and rape, are at historic lows.

It looks like for intimate partner homicide, in terms of sheer numbers, it's gone down for both genders. For men, the overall homicide rate has dropped dramatically - and even though it's a small percentage difference between 1993 and 2010 in terms of intimate partner homicide - 3.7% of total homicides attributed to intimate partner homicide, dropped down to 2.8% - the number has been more than cut in half. The number of female victims has dropped as well, but the percentage is higher - 29.8% up to 39.3%. But I wonder if part of that could be because of the "unknown" relationship category. "Unknown" has increased for men and lowered for women.

Fyi - the Criminal Victimization links talk about reporting.

I've seen estimates that false rape reports are ~9%, others as high as 20%. But we know false DV charges are common -ask the men here.

But that's not the point. Arguing over what % are false, is presupposing The question: do we believe accusations of rape/assault.

The point is that accusations of rape/assault need to be taken seriously. That does not mean the accused is automatically believed, which is what the current group of feminists want (see: campus court rules; Reporting by Emily Joffe in The Atlantic).

Their reports should be taken seriously, and investigated seriously. And if a guy is convicted (in a court of law), I'll be there with the rope to string him up by the balls

You talked about proving or disproving stats. Sometimes, just applying common sense is a good way to check a stat. Do you really think if 20% of women were being raped, it wouldn't be a major catastrophe and front page news every day?

I hadn't seen the 20% stat, nor looked at the women's groups you have that are reporting this stat. But I ask you this - do you think it might be so *normalized* that this is why it isn't front page news on a daily basis?

I'm not good with stats the way you are, WornDown. But I'm good at spotting commonalities amongst people. I've known a lot of fellow survivors of rape, molestation, assault, and abuse. Victims of different genders. Some told. Some didn't. Many were not believed. Many were shamed into silence. All of them, at some point or another, were blamed for their own assault. Many of them were blamed by people in positions of authority. Many of them had assaults that were minimized by people in positions of authority, too.

Those sorts of experiences, which seem to be common, alarm me, because those are all barriers to these getting help. They're also barriers to accurate stats. I wish I knew the answer. I just don't think these things are examined carefully enough. I really hope that the stat is accurate and that the numbers have gone down. It is really hard to put my faith in stats when so many stat-worthy incidents aren't even counted.

ETA:

The point is that accusations of rape/assault need to be taken seriously. That does not mean the accused is automatically believed, which is what the current group of feminists want (see: campus court rules; Reporting by Emily Joffe in The Atlantic).

So this I agree with. It needs to be taken seriously. Somewhere between the two extremes of automatically believed and automatically discounted. Unfortunately, it seems many of us here - men and women both - have experience with one of the two extremes more than we do with a more level, helpful approach in the middle. If all our anecdotes are anything to go by.

[This message edited by silverhopes at 11:32 PM, August 13th (Monday)]

Their reports should be taken seriously, and investigated seriously. And if a guy is convicted (in a court of law), I'll be there with the rope to string him up by the balls

Do you have any stats on numbers of initial reports vs numbers of convictions?

Also, I had heard that there is a huge backup of rape kit analysis. As in, a high number of rape kits that have never been processed. Have you heard about this? What's your take on it?

[This message edited by silverhopes at 11:45 PM, August 13th (Monday)]

as much as my ex is a POS, I believe a lot (the root) of her issues stemmed from a date rape when she was 17, and never really dealt with it

Also, if I may ask (and I understand if this is something you choose not to talk about), what would have been a healthy way of dealing with it, in your opinion? What was the aftermath of the date rape? Do you know if she told, didn't tell? Did she say how others reacted? Was the person ever charged or prosecuted? When did she tell you, and how did you respond? Did she ever show or talk about the aftereffects of what happened? And again, I understand if you don't feel comfortable talking about it, or if you feel it's her story to share and no one else's. I suppose I'm wondering what kinds of experiences she had as a survivor, and if her experiences shaped your perspectives at all, and if so, then how. And also, if you have known other assault survivors? As I mentioned before, I'm not as good at stats - I connect better with people's personal experiences.

[This message edited by silverhopes at 12:43 AM, August 14th (Tuesday)]

So this I agree with. It needs to be taken seriously. Somewhere between the two extremes of automatically believed and automatically discounted. Unfortunately, it seems many of us here - men and women both - have experience with one of the two extremes more than we do with a more level, helpful approach in the middle.

Yes.

Women just being dismissed out of hand is unacceptable. But so is the woman claiming rape who voluntarily (by her own admission) had sex with a guy, then months later claims rape - and the rape advocates say she is correct. There is no justice in either of the extremes.

Do you have any stats on numbers of initial reports vs numbers of convictions?

Also, I had heard that there is a huge backup of rape kit analysis. As in, a high number of rape kits that have never been processed. Have you heard about this? What's your take on it?

A) Rates of conviction - I don't have any. But this question also presupposes that ALL claims of rape are real. What is an acceptable conviction rate? 99%? 90%? 75? 50? We shouldn't be looking at crimes believing that every crime should result in a conviction, ie, guilty until proven innocent - that just leads to a lot of innocent people being convicted - in the name of getting 100%.

B) Rape kits - more $ should be devoted to getting this backlog cleared up. DNA is an amazing forensic tool. Probably the only one beyond fingerprints that is scientifically valid.

Also, if I may ask (and I understand if this is something you choose not to talk about), what would have been a healthy way of dealing with it, in your opinion? What was the aftermath of the date rape? Do you know if she told, didn't tell? Did she say how others reacted? Was the person ever charged or prosecuted? When did she tell you, and how did you respond? Did she ever show or talk about the aftereffects of what happened? And again, I understand if you don't feel comfortable talking about it, or if you feel it's her story to share and no one else's. I suppose I'm wondering what kinds of experiences she had as a survivor, and if her experiences shaped your perspectives at all, and if so, then how. And also, if you have known other assault survivors? As I mentioned before, I'm not as good at stats - I connect better with people's personal experiences.

She was drunk at a party and passed out; a "friend" assaulted her. She had no memory of it, just woke up in the am and figured out what happened. She told her parents a week or so later, but no charges were filed (she didn't want to). She actually started dating him a little while later (yes, that's fucked up, and not all that uncommon; its a way to minimize what happened - if they are boyfriend/girlfriend, it couldn't have been that bad, right?).

I learned about it about a year after it happened, when I started dating her. I never met the guy, I've always wanted to pulverize him. And, yes, I emphasized to her that it wasn't her fault.

She did go to therapy for a while, but what she did was compartmentalize it (see: dating the guy). That was her coping mechanism. That has shown up later in life and is, IMO, what leads her to do bad things (cheat, DUIs, driving without a license, steal DD's identity). By compartmentalizing, she puts that issue in a box, puts it up on a shelf, and, in her mind, denies it exists. She also has said she really gets depressed/out of it from shame (in general); which exacerbates the need to compartmentalize.

When she fucks up, she just puts that issue in a box and pretends it didn't happen, or just ignores it - her shame doesn't let her face the consequences. So, when she gets a DUI - she keeps driving, and gets charged with driving without a license, and then fails to show up for court. Run up huge credit card bills? Don't pay it, because it doesn't exist. Cheating on me, with me showing her proof of her emails? Destroys/deletes the emails - never happened.

I have had a few friends who were molested as kids or saw their mom basically getting passed around (he wasn't molested, but his sister was). In some cases, they grew up to be fairly well adjusted (as anyone can be), a few went through a lot of tough years in their 20s/30s (I presume from dealing with a fucked up childhood), but all had scars.

My ex had other FOO issues (her stepmom told her often she wasn't good enough, family has a history of addiction, mental issues). She's been diagnosed BPII, and ADHD. I believe she has a personality disorder - she ticks off lots of boxes in the borderline, narcissistic, and histrionic categories. One therapist told her she thought she was borderline; the ex dropped that therapist about a month later. So, maybe she was already doomed to be a mess, but I think that the sexual trauma she suffered played a VERY large role in how she turned out as an adult.

Infidelity is one of the worst things I think can happen to a person. But sexual trauma is in a whole other realm; that's why I'll be there with the rope for rapists. I do however, believe that with a lot of therapy, and us - as a society - removing the stigma associated with rape/assault, that could go a long way to helping people recover.

[The ex has told her story, in public no less, but at that point (20 years later) I think it was more about her getting attention (which she craves) and less about healing.]

Stats mean nothing to you if you are the one out of three. That was the last stat I saw. Stats mean nothing because many young women and children never report it till there older and feel safe. In the community of women that are willing to share with women, 1 out of 3 of my friends have been sexually assaulted and I don't mean cat calls or grabbing butt. I mean rapes to CSA. What is sad is that children aren't protected by men that can't keep their hands off of them. The MeToo movement should focus more on the victims that hardly stand a chance to protect themselves from these men. I am hoping and praying that it widens the focus on protecting children. In our city there is a huge issue with clergy and young boys and a list is being published. Survivors of sexual assaults and abuse don't care about anyone's stats.

Thank you for telling what happened. It's not easy to talk about these things. I wonder how her parents responded when she told them; you'd said her stepmom often told her she wasn't good enough. Either way, what a horrible thing to have happened to her.

A) Rates of conviction - I don't have any. But this question also presupposes that ALL claims of rape are real. What is an acceptable conviction rate? 99%? 90%? 75? 50? We shouldn't be looking at crimes believing that every crime should result in a conviction, ie, guilty until proven innocent - that just leads to a lot of innocent people being convicted - in the name of getting 100%.

I'm not sure if this is a false stat or not, but I read on RAINN that about 3% of reported incidents ever result in a conviction. I tried to fact-check to see the accuracy of that, but couldn't find a definitive answer. One thing I'm guessing is this: there is not a 50% conviction rate. I doubt there's even a 20% conviction rate. You ask what's acceptable, and if we assume all claims are real. I'd say, even a 20% conviction rate might be a welcome change. Certainly higher than 3%. Maybe with even a slightly higher conviction rate - again, 20% - it might save a few more people from going through that trauma.

You said before to use common sense to check the accuracy of stats. I'd say, that 3% might not be so far off. Of the folks I've known who have suffered this, I don't know of a single one whose attackers were ever convicted. There's a chance with one friend - I didn't hear what happened with her attacker, and he got her pregnant when he raped her. But all the instances I know of - including my own, mind you, and I've been through this shit more than once - no one was prosecuted. The police never spent even a minute talking to them. The survivors shouldered all of it.

B) Rape kits - more $ should be devoted to getting this backlog cleared up. DNA is an amazing forensic tool. Probably the only one beyond fingerprints that is scientifically valid.

Whenever I hear that there's a lack of evidence and this results in fewer convictions, I sincerely believe that the backlog has something to do with it. There might be a lot more justice served if the kits were actually processed. Let's say that 3% is inaccurate - let's say 10% result in convictions (and that's probably being overly generous). Let's say that your stat of 20% false accusations is accurate (which, again, I think is too high). So, what about the other 70% of survivors who are telling the truth, have made a report, and have in many cases submitted themselves to a rape kit? If the stat was that 70% of survivors never see any form of justice, what would you think of that? I'd think that means there are an awful lot of people running around knowing that they'll never face consequences for what they did, and that leaves them free to reoffend.

Stats mean nothing to you if you are the one out of three. That was the last stat I saw. Stats mean nothing because many young women and children never report it till there older and feel safe. In the community of women that are willing to share with women, 1 out of 3 of my friends have been sexually assaulted and I don't mean cat calls or grabbing butt. I mean rapes to CSA. What is sad is that children aren't protected by men that can't keep their hands off of them. The MeToo movement should focus more on the victims that hardly stand a chance to protect themselves from these men. I am hoping and praying that it widens the focus on protecting children. In our city there is a huge issue with clergy and young boys and a list is being published. Survivors of sexual assaults and abuse don't care about anyone's stats.

Yes. Though I'd say it's children who are victims to both men and women who can't keep their hands to themselves. 2 of us were abused by women who I know of, and I know there are other survivors out there who deal with that too.

IIRC, that 3% stat is derived from saying only 20% are reported, then X% are actually charged, then Y% are actually convicted. So, again, it's a bit of a misleading stat - hard to convict someone who isn't charged, let alone when no complaint is even lodged with the police.

(I just tried looking up the statistics, and found the RAINN ones - their graphs say exactly what I just said, and it's true for ALL crimes.

The Washington Post did a fact check on a similar graphic, and gave it 3 (out of 4) Pinocchios for playing fast and loose (knowingly) with the stats. Google: "Washington Post The truth about a viral graphic on rape statistics" One of the biggest knocks on that graph is that apparently the average rapist has six vicitims - You can't have 100 rapes and a 100 people incarcerated if the rapes are done by 30 people (I picked a people number for demonstration purposes)).

If a complaint (WITH THE POLICE) isn't filed, then there can be no conviction.

As to DNA bringing more convictions, that is true for rapes by a stranger, but date/associate rape is more complicated (and more prevalent). If both agree that they had sex, but one says it wasn't consensual, DNA doesn't prove a rape occurred, just that they had sex. Other evidence is needed to come to that conclusion.

[This message edited by WornDown at 12:00 PM, August 14th (Tuesday)]

Again, I try to understand stats the way you do, and I find myself coming up short. You say that you think that offenders should be convicted, and then bring in stat after stat that seems to tear down what you're saying. I get the feeling that you would rather argue about stats than actually talk about the issue. Stats can be helpful, but the way you use them in arguments comes across as downplaying and minimizing. Maybe there's a place for arguing stats, but doing so with folks who have been through this stuff? How does that help them, aside from reminding them of times folks accused them of lying and about the way they never got justice - and probably never will - for what happened? Who are you trying to validate or invalidate with these stats?

So we both agree that 3% is inaccurate. What percentage, then, do you think gets convicted? I sincerely doubt it's 50%. Like I said, I think 3% is too small, but 10% is too generous. I'd say more like 7%. And you say that it couldn't be 100% convictions anyway because many of the assaults are done by the same people, reoffenders, who take an average of 6 victims. OK... So how many times do they get to reoffend before they're locked up? And if a person has more than one victim, why are we so eager to say that the multiple victims are all liars? (Just look at what happened with Cosby's victims.)

ETA: And, if you ever wonder why more people don't report what happened to the police, you've gotten an entire pageful of reasons why. They really can't without being scrutinized to the nth degree. Have you ever heard survivors say that the stuff they went through afterwards was almost as bad (or sometimes equally bad) as the actual assault? It's true.

[This message edited by silverhopes at 12:20 PM, August 14th (Tuesday)]

Well, this started out from a statement that 1 of 2 daughters is going to be raped. I said that is just not true (likely). But now, you are asking me what I think the conviction rate should be.

I think the problem is you want me to say - 100% of offenders should be found guilty.

Which is true. All offenders should be found guilty.

But what is not true is having a 100% certainty in KNOWING who the offenders are. If you think that a simple accusation is enough to convict someone, then I strongly disagree.

I have no idea if someone is telling the truth or not when they file a complaint against someone else - for ANY crime. It is the job of the police to investigate the crime, try to determine the facts of the case, and present it to the prosecutor for trial.

Wanting convictions simply on accusations is not how our justice system is built. It is, however, what victim advocate groups want and have pushed for on campuses. They want the system stacked so that all a woman has to do is make an accusation and the accused is punished.

They don't want cross examination, identification of the accuser, the defendant to have legal representation, be able to call witnesses to refute the accusations, and lowering the bar for conviction (below "reasonable doubt").

THAT is the antithesis of the rule of law, and against what our legal system is built upon.

As I said before, all accusations should be taken seriously and investigated. But that does not mean all accusations should lead to convictions. To expect that, means a lot of innocent people will be put in jail/destroyed.

[This message edited by WornDown at 1:11 PM, August 14th (Tuesday)]