15 percent of women are raped while incapacitated during their freshman year at college

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This recently released report from the AAUW seems to be relevant to the discussion in this thread:

http://www.aauw.org/article/clery-act-data-analysis/

91 Percent of Colleges Reported Zero Incidents of Rape in 2014

Newly reported data required by the Clery Act indicate that the annual statistics collected by colleges and universities still do not tell the full story of sexual violence on campus. Many are familiar with the disturbing statistic that one in five women is sexually assaulted during college, but less well known is that more than one in five college women experiences physical abuse, sexual abuse, or threats of physical violence at the hands of an intimate partner.AAUW’s analysis of the 2014 data revealed the following.

Ninety-one percent of college campuses disclosed zero reported incidences of rape in 2014. With about 11,000 campuses disclosing annual crime data, an overwhelming majority of schools certified that in 2014 they did not receive a single report of a rape.

For the first time, we also have access to data regarding dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking incidents on campuses nationwide. But in these categories as well, only about 10 percent of college campuses disclosed a reported incident in 2014.

Among the nearly 4,000 main or primary campuses of colleges and universities with enrollment of at least 250 students, 76 percent disclosed zero rape reports in 2014.

About the only thing I can say for sure is that rape statistics on college campuses is just about the biggest clusterfuck I can think of. For what its worth, the AAUW has released some misleading stats and reports in the past, but they've generally leaned towards overstating various women victim issues, not understating.

What does the report say about (1) sexual assaults and (2) unreported cases of sex assault and/or rape?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This recently released report from the AAUW seems to be relevant to the discussion in this thread:

http://www.aauw.org/article/clery-act-data-analysis/



About the only thing I can say for sure is that rape statistics on college campuses is just about the biggest clusterfuck I can think of. For what its worth, the AAUW has released some misleading stats and reports in the past, but they've generally leaned towards overstating various women victim issues, not understating.

What does the report say about (1) sexual assaults and (2) unreported cases of sex assault and/or rape?

Ya, he really should have included a link which answered that exact question.

 

[thebeave]

So what makes women on the other 9% of campuses so eager to falsely accuse men of rape? Is it Obama?

Heh. Yeah, well that's kind of the puzzle isn't it? If 15% of freshman women are supposedly being raped per one study, but 91% of colleges are reporting no rape in another study, then that's huge shitload of raping going on at 9% of the colleges. Why doesn't someone release the names of those colleges, then we can send SWAT teams out there, kill all the rapists and solve this campus rape problem once and for all?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What does the report say about (1) sexual assaults and (2) unreported cases of sex assault and/or rape?

Ya, he really should have included a link which answered that exact question.

It talks about reported sex assault statistics? Anyway, some of the difference is in how things are defined. Some of the rest of the difference is in whether things are reported or unreported. There may be other differences but I think that "reported rape stats" is probably the most conservative way to measure the problem. It's going to show the biggest difference from the surveys. We already knew that.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, he really should have included a link which answered that exact question.

It talks about reported sex assault statistics?

Perhaps if you read the link, you would know what it does or does not say.

To answer your obvious follow-up question, it does not give any information about the winning percentages of the varsity football teams at those schools. It's very specific about what it does and does not talk about.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It talks about reported sex assault statistics?

Perhaps if you read the link, you would know what it does or does not say.

I read the link and I read the post. The post presented an incomplete (perhaps even biased) picture of the link which is why I followed it up with the questions. A returned post with answers would have clarified the issue. I am not going to argue with someone when there is no point. I will ask some questions first, if it's worth it. It seemed like it would be.

To answer your obvious follow-up question, it does not give any information about the winning percentages of the varsity football teams at those schools. It's very specific about what it does and does not talk about.

I don't have any follow-up questions about irrelevant things.

 

[Malintent]

a) "feel better" about what?
b) there you go, using the word FORCE again. Yes, if we take the word "unwanted" away, and replace it (as you did) with "force", then there is not much to disagree about. You again are exemplifying my point perfectly... you can't even describe a "rape situation" without the word "force".

A) Your position.
B). Some time ago, a friend was at a party and drank a lot more than she realized or intended. But suppose she intended to get shit faced. Makes no difference. She was one of those very genial drunks, full of love and affection for the world. She happily embraced one of the guys at the party, gave him a big ole hug and loudly proclaimed how much she loved everybody---and then fell backwards on a bed. Her boyfriend had passed out drunk in another room but not before proclaiming his disgust at HER drunkenness. From the bed she said she loved everybody so much she just wanted to give them a big ole kiss. A line quickly formed and the mood got real ugly, real fast before I stepped in and shut it down. Before you decide I over reacted, belt buckles and zippers were being loosened. There were some disagreements about order and whether the boyfriend would object. Fortunately I has not been drinking and with a great deal of difficulty as she was about 8 inches taller than me, I maneuvered her to another unoccupied room and spent the rest if the night keeping guys from coming in. We were lucky. It could have ended very badly for both of us. There was no way that she understood what the guys had in mind nor was there any way she could have defended herself if she had. Not was she capable of consent. There was no force in the sense that no one was holding a gun to her head and no one beat her unconscious. Her level of inebriation made that totally unnecessary.

She didn't remember what happened except that she drank too much which was why she thought her boyfriend was angry with her.

Yes... "Incapacitated" would be the operative word, whereas "unwanted" is a useless word... Your story tells of an incapacitated individual being potentially raped by a group of people. No argument from me that the definition regarding rape, with respect to capacity to defend oneself, is adequate using the word 'incapacitated'. It has been used in legal decisions before. "Unwanted" is nebulous and problematic. Where are you disagreeing about that specific, single point I have made?

You sound like someone responding to "I think we should go to the movies", with, "NO!! I think WE should go to the MOVIES!!!"

 

[Toni]

A) Your position.
B). Some time ago, a friend was at a party and drank a lot more than she realized or intended. But suppose she intended to get shit faced. Makes no difference. She was one of those very genial drunks, full of love and affection for the world. She happily embraced one of the guys at the party, gave him a big ole hug and loudly proclaimed how much she loved everybody---and then fell backwards on a bed. Her boyfriend had passed out drunk in another room but not before proclaiming his disgust at HER drunkenness. From the bed she said she loved everybody so much she just wanted to give them a big ole kiss. A line quickly formed and the mood got real ugly, real fast before I stepped in and shut it down. Before you decide I over reacted, belt buckles and zippers were being loosened. There were some disagreements about order and whether the boyfriend would object. Fortunately I has not been drinking and with a great deal of difficulty as she was about 8 inches taller than me, I maneuvered her to another unoccupied room and spent the rest if the night keeping guys from coming in. We were lucky. It could have ended very badly for both of us. There was no way that she understood what the guys had in mind nor was there any way she could have defended herself if she had. Not was she capable of consent. There was no force in the sense that no one was holding a gun to her head and no one beat her unconscious. Her level of inebriation made that totally unnecessary.

She didn't remember what happened except that she drank too much which was why she thought her boyfriend was angry with her.

Yes... "Incapacitated" would be the operative word, whereas "unwanted" is a useless word... Your story tells of an incapacitated individual being potentially raped by a group of people. No argument from me that the definition regarding rape, with respect to capacity to defend oneself, is adequate using the word 'incapacitated'. It has been used in legal decisions before. "Unwanted" is nebulous and problematic. Where are you disagreeing about that specific, single point I have made?

You sound like someone responding to "I think we should go to the movies", with, "NO!! I think WE should go to the MOVIES!!!"

Actually, I was responding directly to your post which is quoted in my response.

 

[Malintent]

Yes... "Incapacitated" would be the operative word, whereas "unwanted" is a useless word... Your story tells of an incapacitated individual being potentially raped by a group of people. No argument from me that the definition regarding rape, with respect to capacity to defend oneself, is adequate using the word 'incapacitated'. It has been used in legal decisions before. "Unwanted" is nebulous and problematic. Where are you disagreeing about that specific, single point I have made?

You sound like someone responding to "I think we should go to the movies", with, "NO!! I think WE should go to the MOVIES!!!"

Actually, I was responding directly to your post which is quoted in my response.

Obviously. I have no idea what the purpose of your response to my post is. you sound like you are disagreeing with something, yet I cannot parse what exactly that is.

Rape is morally wrong
engaging in unconsented sex with someone that never has given consent before is rape. ("no means no" and "lack of yes means no")
incapacitated people cannot provide consent (drunk)
consent under duress is not consent (forced)
the notion of wanting something or not wanting something is irrelevant to the discussion of consent / rape (the point I am making)

Which of the above statements are you objecting to?

 

[ronburgundy]

Actually, I was responding directly to your post which is quoted in my response.

Obviously. I have no idea what the purpose of your response to my post is. you sound like you are disagreeing with something, yet I cannot parse what exactly that is.

Rape is morally wrong
engaging in unconsented sex with someone that never has given consent before is rape. ("no means no" and "lack of yes means no")
incapacitated people cannot provide consent (drunk)
consent under duress is not consent (forced)
the notion of wanting something or not wanting something is irrelevant to the discussion of consent / rape (the point I am making)

Which of the above statements are you objecting to?

Not so much an objection as a clarification of the two highlighted statements. Only an extreme sub-category of "drunk" qualifies as belonging to the the form of "Incapacitated" that prohibits consent. And such extreme near or actual unconsciousness need not be due to drugs (e.g., simply being asleep). Thus, being drunk is neither necessary nor sufficient for a person to be "incapacitated" in a way that precludes consent.

Also, "under duress" precludes consent only in the strict legal use of the term in which threats or violence that are in themselves illegal are used to coerce the sex. IOW, even prior to and without the sex happening, a crime has already been committed due to the nature of the threats. Basically, if the threatened action by itself is not sufficient to charge the person with a crime, then it is not sufficient to make the sex act a crime of rape. For example, threats to engage in legal actions like break up with a person or to publicly shame or embarrass them are not "duress" in a legal sense and do not nullify consent.

 

[Malintent]

Obviously. I have no idea what the purpose of your response to my post is. you sound like you are disagreeing with something, yet I cannot parse what exactly that is.

Rape is morally wrong
engaging in unconsented sex with someone that never has given consent before is rape. ("no means no" and "lack of yes means no")
incapacitated people cannot provide consent (drunk)
consent under duress is not consent (forced)
the notion of wanting something or not wanting something is irrelevant to the discussion of consent / rape (the point I am making)

Which of the above statements are you objecting to?

Not so much an objection as a clarification of the two highlighted statements. Only an extreme sub-category of "drunk" qualifies as belonging to the the form of "Incapacitated" that prohibits consent. And such extreme near or actual unconsciousness need not be due to drugs (e.g., simply being asleep). Thus, being drunk is neither necessary nor sufficient for a person to be "incapacitated" in a way that precludes consent.

Also, "under duress" precludes consent only in the strict legal use of the term in which threats or violence that are in themselves illegal are used to coerce the sex. IOW, even prior to and without the sex happening, a crime has already been committed due to the nature of the threats. Basically, if the threatened action by itself is not sufficient to charge the person with a crime, then it is not sufficient to make the sex act a crime of rape. For example, threats to engage in legal actions like break up with a person or to publicly shame or embarrass them are not "duress" in a legal sense and do not nullify consent.

Yes. I am in agreement with everything you said there. I did not intend to imply that "drunk" was the only cause of "incapacitated".. it is just an example that applies to what has been discussed in this thread.

It seems our definitions are all in agreement.. and again, "unwanted" is not an appropriate attribute within the definition of rape... everything else there is.

 

[zorq]

So what makes women on the other 9% of campuses so eager to falsely accuse men of rape? Is it Obama?

Heh. Yeah, well that's kind of the puzzle isn't it? If 15% of freshman women are supposedly being raped per one study, but 91% of colleges are reporting no rape in another study, then that's huge shitload of raping going on at 9% of the colleges. Why doesn't someone release the names of those colleges, then we can send SWAT teams out there, kill all the rapists and solve this campus rape problem once and for all?

1. Rapes of women attending college do not always happen on campus. 2. Rapes are often reported to actual police instead of college administration. 3. Many rapes are never reported to anyone. 4. College administrations may not even keep track of rapes that are reported to them.

Is it really that difficult for you to see that you aren't comparing apples to apples here?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Heh. Yeah, well that's kind of the puzzle isn't it? If 15% of freshman women are supposedly being raped per one study, but 91% of colleges are reporting no rape in another study, then that's huge shitload of raping going on at 9% of the colleges. Why doesn't someone release the names of those colleges, then we can send SWAT teams out there, kill all the rapists and solve this campus rape problem once and for all?

1. Rapes of women attending college do not always happen on campus. 2. Rapes are often reported to actual police instead of college administration. 3. Many rapes are never reported to anyone. 4. College administrations may not even keep track of rapes that are reported to them.

Is it really that difficult for you to see that you aren't comparing apples to apples here?

Did you really consider that a post which was making a serious point?

 

[arkirk]

Not so much an objection as a clarification of the two highlighted statements. Only an extreme sub-category of "drunk" qualifies as belonging to the the form of "Incapacitated" that prohibits consent. And such extreme near or actual unconsciousness need not be due to drugs (e.g., simply being asleep). Thus, being drunk is neither necessary nor sufficient for a person to be "incapacitated" in a way that precludes consent.

Also, "under duress" precludes consent only in the strict legal use of the term in which threats or violence that are in themselves illegal are used to coerce the sex. IOW, even prior to and without the sex happening, a crime has already been committed due to the nature of the threats. Basically, if the threatened action by itself is not sufficient to charge the person with a crime, then it is not sufficient to make the sex act a crime of rape. For example, threats to engage in legal actions like break up with a person or to publicly shame or embarrass them are not "duress" in a legal sense and do not nullify consent.

Yes. I am in agreement with everything you said there. I did not intend to imply that "drunk" was the only cause of "incapacitated".. it is just an example that applies to what has been discussed in this thread.

It seems our definitions are all in agreement.. and again, "unwanted" is not an appropriate attribute within the definition of rape... everything else there is.

Rape is IS ALL ABOUT WHETHER SEXUAL INTERCOURSE IS WANTED OR UNWANTED. Consent is all about whether one wants to have something happen or not. Saying no counts. Being drunk counts in that a person may be so incapacitated they cannot rationally determine what is happening to them. Various forms of duress count also. To leave out whether it is wanted or not is leaving out the most important defining parameter.

 

[Toni]

Actually, I was responding directly to your post which is quoted in my response.

Obviously. I have no idea what the purpose of your response to my post is. you sound like you are disagreeing with something, yet I cannot parse what exactly that is.

Rape is morally wrong
engaging in unconsented sex with someone that never has given consent before is rape. ("no means no" and "lack of yes means no")
incapacitated people cannot provide consent (drunk)
consent under duress is not consent (forced)
the notion of wanting something or not wanting something is irrelevant to the discussion of consent / rape (the point I am making)

Which of the above statements are you objecting to?

You said I could not describe a rape without using the word 'force.'

I described a situation which certainly would have been rape if someone had not stopped it. Without force.

arkirk is correct: the notion of wanting or not wanting sex is the crux of any discussion of consent. Consent also requires the capacity to consent. Those who are impaired through alcohol or drugs or other intoxicants, or through age or disability are not considered to be able to consent.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You write that as if you're rebutting somebody on that point.

 

[Toni]

You write that as if you're rebutting somebody on that point.

I'm responding to a direct question.

My response is somewhat counter to the fact that some posters feel that rape is only rape if their personal definition is used and their personal conditions are met.

Rape is defined by legal statute, not by personal definition.

 

[bigfield]

Rape is defined by legal statute, not by personal definition.

That's a fallacious appeal to authority.

If rape is defined by legal stature then the definition of rape changes as you change jurisdictions.

For instance, marital rape is not rape according to Saudi law, yet we still recognise that it is indeed rape and the Saudi law is wrong.

 

[Toni]

Rape is defined by legal statute, not by personal definition.

That's a fallacious appeal to authority.

If rape is defined by legal stature then the definition of rape changes as you change jurisdictions.

For instance, marital rape is not rape according to Saudi law, yet we still recognise that it is indeed rape and the Saudi law is wrong.

Rape IS defined by legal statute and DOES change as you change jurisdictions. At least if you are talking about legal definitions. It seems to me that some in this thread want to substitute their own personal definition of rape as THE definition of rape, mostly to discredit the study in the OP.

Before we get all huffy about rape laws in Saudi Arabia, it hasn't been that long since the US adopted legislation which criminalized forced sex as rape, even within a marriage. The FBI only recently included males as possible rape victims in recent years.

Fortunately, society is progressing to recognize that rape can include male victims as well as female victims, that not all rape is forcible rape, that some conditions preclude the possibility of consent, that non-consensual sex is rape, and so on. The laws have not caught up with this progress. Neither have all of the posters in this thread.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So wait, rape is defined by legal statute and yet the laws have not caught up to properly defining rape?