Another Trump Rape Surfaces

[laughing dog]

But where's the proof that x != 3? All they are doing is saying I'm wrong, not showing it.

I have abundantly shown it.

You said I was ignoring the possibility that some were raped more than once--except I wasn't. Rather, I was showing what the probability was of multiple attacks, assuming they are independent.

That assumption is truly suspect. And you appear unable to parse that the probability is one of four women have been assaulted at least once. You are using it as the probability is one of four women have been assaulted exactly once which means you are misusing the statistic.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You said I was ignoring the possibility that some were raped more than once--except I wasn't. Rather, I was showing what the probability was of multiple attacks, assuming they are independent.

That assumption is truly suspect. And you appear unable to parse that the probability is one of four women have been assaulted at least once. You are using it as the probability is one of four women have been assaulted exactly once which means you are misusing the statistic.

The problem with your logic is I never assumed it was exactly once.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Let's review. Here's your math again:

The highest number we have for the % of women who are the victim of sexual assault is 1 in 4.

False. The percentages I've presented are upwards of 70% being the victim of some form of sexual assault.

21 times?

Misleading. The number refers to how many "hideous men" she's met in her life, not necessarrily the number of times she has been sexualy assaulted. So, to start with, the math should be about how many hideous men have existed in the past 75 years correlated to Carroll's journeys in life in order to find out the chances of her having come into contact with 21 of them.

That's .25^21, roughly 1 in 4 trillion.

First of all, no, it's not. .25^21 is .000000000000227. So where are you getting "1 in 4 trillion"?

Second, why would you raise .25 to the 21st power even if you were correct that 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted? The claim isn't that 25% of women have been sexually assaulted 21 times in their lives, but even if it were, you still wouldn't take .25 to the 21st power. What does the .25 represent? 1 in 4 women in America? 1 in 4 women on the planet? 1 in 4 women to have ever existed?

Because it isn't properly qualified, it can only represent 1 in 4 women to have ever existed. So, at best, all your math would tell is is the percentage of women to have ever existed having been sexually assaulted 21 times.

You further assert that would be a 1 in 1,000 chance. Ok. There have been some 50 billion women to have ever existed (if we take the estimates from 50,000 CE forward). Setting aside the fact that percentages of assault were likely far higher in earlier periods, thus radically skewing the results, according to your math, that's 50 million who have been assaulted at least 21 times throughout human history.

But, again, it's not 21 assaults; it's 21 "hideous men" she's met in her 75 years on the planet.

We know from the other research I've provided that at least 34% of men commit some form of sexual assault in their lives (and a much larger percentage of those have been repeat offenders). Which means that all Carroll (or any person) need do is meet around 60 men in her entire life to have been exposed to a possible 21 "hideous men."

Once again, considering that her career trajectory had her living/working/traveling around a lot and primarily in large cities, interviewing hundreds of people, it's a safe bet that she met/interacted with/lived among tens of thousands of men, such that any one of them could have sexually assaulted her in some fashion.

But let's call it one thousand men that she came into direct contact with over her 75 years, such that they had sufficient access to her and therefore could have assaulted her in the manners she described. That would mean that--whether she knew it or not--she had met at least 340 "hideous men," not merely 21. It was only 21 that acted in a manner she found notable and to have crossed her own personal line, but regardless, we're talking about potentials/percentages.

So, with that low estimate, what are the chances of 21 out of 340 potentials assaulting her, particularly in light of the fact that some 2/3rds of those who assault, do so more than four times per year? Iow, they are highly prone to assault if given the opportunity.

Remember, that's 340 active predators, not merely dormant predators. Iow, predators that will assault if given the opportunity.

Whether or not they actively assaut Carroll is the question and that obviously depends on circumstances, but that's the lowered risk estimate we're talking about and considering the high number of repeat offenders, it's extremely low.

So, among at least (again, it's on the low end) 340 active predators with access and intent, what would 21 acting on the opportunity represent?

6% acting on the opportunity? Because that strains credulity that it would be that low.

Iow, Carroll is extremely lucky that she only was aware of having met 21 out of a far larger pool of predators who had intent and access.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let's review. Here's your math again:

False. The percentages I've presented are upwards of 70% being the victim of some form of sexual assault.

Your data was for victim or knew someone who was a victim.

Misleading. The number refers to how many "hideous men" she's met in her life, not necessarrily the number of times she has been sexualy assaulted. So, to start with, the math should be about how many hideous men have existed in the past 75 years correlated to Carroll's journeys in life in order to find out the chances of her having come into contact with 21 of them.

Then it's sort of meaningless.

That's .25^21, roughly 1 in 4 trillion.

First of all, no, it's not. .25^21 is .000000000000227. So where are you getting "1 in 4 trillion"?

Expressing it as a decimal rather than 1 in x doesn't change things. It's still the same number.

Second, why would you raise .25 to the 21st power even if you were correct that 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted? The claim isn't that 25% of women have been sexually assaulted 21 times in their lives, but even if it were, you still wouldn't take .25 to the 21st power. What does the .25 represent? 1 in 4 women in America? 1 in 4 women on the planet? 1 in 4 women to have ever existed?

That number is for America. Assuming independent events the odds of something happening twice are the odds of it happening once * the odds of it happening once. Extend that to 21 times and you get .25^21.

You further assert that would be a 1 in 1,000 chance. Ok. There have been some 50 billion women to have ever existed (if we take the estimates from 50,000 CE forward). Setting aside the fact that percentages of assault were likely far higher in earlier periods, thus radically skewing the results, according to your math, that's 50 million who have been assaulted at least 21 times throughout human history.

I was looking at Earth's current population--the odds of such a woman existing, not having existed.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Your data was for victim or knew someone who was a victim.

Right, so that's 1 out of every 2 at the very least, not 1 out of 4. It is either me that was assaulted, or it is was you (the person I know) that was assaulted.

The number refers to how many "hideous men" she's met in her life, not necessarrily the number of times she has been sexualy assaulted. So, to start with, the math should be about how many hideous men have existed in the past 75 years correlated to Carroll's journeys in life in order to find out the chances of her having come into contact with 21 of them.

Then it's sort of meaningless.

Only to you apparently.

That's .25^21, roughly 1 in 4 trillion.

First of all, no, it's not. .25^21 is .000000000000227. So where are you getting "1 in 4 trillion"?

Expressing it as a decimal rather than 1 in x doesn't change things. It's still the same number.

How? That would be more like 1 in 100 Billion, not 1 in 4 Trillion.

Second, why would you raise .25 to the 21st power even if you were correct that 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted? The claim isn't that 25% of women have been sexually assaulted 21 times in their lives, but even if it were, you still wouldn't take .25 to the 21st power. What does the .25 represent? 1 in 4 women in America? 1 in 4 women on the planet? 1 in 4 women to have ever existed?

That number is for America.

Then you should express the actual percentage of total women (50% of 160 Million, or 80 million).

Assuming independent events the odds of something happening twice are the odds of it happening once * the odds of it happening once.

The odds of what happening once? .25 does not represent the odds of a woman being sexually assaulted. It represents (incorrectly) the percentage who have reported being assaulted. But even if you take 50% as the number having been assaulted (and assume that is underreported), that still does not mean that the odds of a woman being sexually assaulted once are 50%

The odds would depend entirely on circumstances and numbers of predators and access, etc and then in a nearly infinite number of situations and unpredictable circumstances.

You further assert that would be a 1 in 1,000 chance. Ok. There have been some 50 billion women to have ever existed (if we take the estimates from 50,000 CE forward). Setting aside the fact that percentages of assault were likely far higher in earlier periods, thus radically skewing the results, according to your math, that's 50 million who have been assaulted at least 21 times throughout human history.

I was looking at Earth's current population--the odds of such a woman existing, not having existed.

Ok, so, you took the "1 in 4" women who reported having been sexually assaulted as a percentage; then considered the percentage as equivalent to the odds of being assaulted; then considered the odds of every event/circumstance to be the same; then factored it 21 times; then somehow rounded the result to 1 in 4 trillion, instead of 1 in 100 Billion; compared that number to the entire global population (not just women); and concluded that there was a 1 in 1,000 chance of any woman on the planet having had 21 sexaul assaults.

Does that accurately follow your calculation?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Some years ago, an investigation of rape rates by the Justice Department found rape was a very under reported crime. 1 out of 6 American women would be raped in their life time. one of the few trustworthy studies I am aware of. Out of some 150 million American women, that means 25 million women will have been raped.

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

 

[Toni]

"What do we need men for? A modest proposal" sounds like a man-hating radical feminist screed. Are we really to believe the author was raped six different times by six different perpetrators?
And if Trump raped her 20 years ago, why only come out with it now? Highly suspect, especially since there is no way to prove or disprove the allegations. I guess she hopes the allegation itself, even if unsubstantiated, will provide some stink.

From this book:

"After a painful scalp reduction surgery to remove a bald spot, Donald Trump confronted his then-wife, who had previously used the same plastic surgeon.

" 'Your f[******] doctor has ruined me!' Trump cried.

"What followed was a 'violent assault,' according to Lost Tycoon. Donald held back Ivana's arms and began to pull out fistfuls of hair from her scalp, as if to mirror the pain he felt from his own operation. He tore off her clothes and unzipped his pants.

" 'Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months. Ivana is terrified... It is a violent assault,' Hurt writes. 'According to versions she repeats to some of her closest confidantes, 'he raped me.'

Since then, Ivana has revised her statement saying that it happened, but it wasn't rape (just sex without consent I guess?), and Trump's lawyer at the time, Michael Cohen (remember him?), stating, "You can't rape your spouse".

So, yeah. Pretty plausible. I'm shocked that you would automatically dismiss an allegation from a woman though, that's pretty atypical from you.

There were no laws against marital rape at the time of the event in NY plus I would betthat she had to recant as part of the divorce settlement and because at the time, the law saw nothing wrong with a man forcing sex on his wife.

 

[laughing dog]

You said I was ignoring the possibility that some were raped more than once--except I wasn't. Rather, I was showing what the probability was of multiple attacks, assuming they are independent.

That assumption is truly suspect. And you appear unable to parse that the probability is one of four women have been assaulted at least once. You are using it as the probability is one of four women have been assaulted exactly once which means you are misusing the statistic.

The problem with your logic is I never assumed it was exactly once.

Then your math is completely wrong. Because if at least once includes 2 or 3 or 13 times, it makes no sense to raise it to the 21st power.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Not sure if this has been discussed, but the independence of events has been shown empirically to be false. There was a thread on such a couple of years back with surveys or other statistics that showed some women (more than you'd expect if independent) were targets. So any attempt at numbers while making an assumption of independence would be wrong.

Off the top of my head, and I would like to hear what others think, here could be some external factors that could contribute to higher incidence of sex assaults:
1. Neglectful parents;
2. Culture of job;
3. Living in a crime hot spot;
4. Working in industry that exploits women;
5. Patriarchical hot spot.

In the alleged victim's case, she was an athlete, a cheerleader, did some modeling, and had a lot of exposure to men in power for decades. Her association to fashion magazines put her in contact with an industry that exploits women but the powerful men do more than that. The men's assaulting of women is also not independent with some of these guys assaulting dozens or hundreds of women or girls.

So after winning a modeling competition at girl scout camp at 12 years old, what was the probability she'd be inappropriately touched by at least one male pervert working at the camp? Those places are a hotspot for perverts. Likewise, if you are a good looking woman and run into Trump in a dressing room, what is the probability, he will not touch you or grope you, especially after a mistaken perception of flirting?

Where are these known factors in the badly done math?

 

[Derec]

1. Neglectful parents;
2. Culture of job;
3. Living in a crime hot spot;
4. Working in industry that exploits women;
5. Patriarchical hot spot.

6. Shopping at Bergdorf.

 

[Toni]

1. Neglectful parents;
2. Culture of job;
3. Living in a crime hot spot;
4. Working in industry that exploits women;
5. Patriarchical hot spot.

6. Shopping at Bergdorf.

7. Existing in the same environment with men.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

1. Neglectful parents;
2. Culture of job;
3. Living in a crime hot spot;
4. Working in industry that exploits women;
5. Patriarchical hot spot.

6. Shopping at Bergdorf.

What a terrible response.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Right, so that's 1 out of every 2 at the very least, not 1 out of 4. It is either me that was assaulted, or it is was you (the person I know) that was assaulted.

So a woman tells no more than one person?!?!

Then it's sort of meaningless.

Only to you apparently.

It's a subjective description since it doesn't refer to any actual action.

That's .25^21, roughly 1 in 4 trillion.

First of all, no, it's not. .25^21 is .000000000000227. So where are you getting "1 in 4 trillion"?

Expressing it as a decimal rather than 1 in x doesn't change things. It's still the same number.

How? That would be more like 1 in 100 Billion, not 1 in 4 Trillion.

Count the zeroes. And how do you get 100 billion when the number starts with 2?

Second, why would you raise .25 to the 21st power even if you were correct that 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted? The claim isn't that 25% of women have been sexually assaulted 21 times in their lives, but even if it were, you still wouldn't take .25 to the 21st power. What does the .25 represent? 1 in 4 women in America? 1 in 4 women on the planet? 1 in 4 women to have ever existed?

That number is for America.

Then you should express the actual percentage of total women (50% of 160 Million, or 80 million).

Then it's 1 in 20,000 that she exists.

Assuming independent events the odds of something happening twice are the odds of it happening once * the odds of it happening once.

The odds of what happening once? .25 does not represent the odds of a woman being sexually assaulted. It represents (incorrectly) the percentage who have reported being assaulted. But even if you take 50% as the number having been assaulted (and assume that is underreported), that still does not mean that the odds of a woman being sexually assaulted once are 50%

No. It's the number who say they were ever assaulted (in surveys rigged to produce a higher number.) It's not a measure of how many were assaulted exactly once. Thus your argument falls apart.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So a woman tells no more than one person?!?!

The poll question was have you or someone you know been sexually assaulted? Let's say you are the person I know that has been sexually assaulted. If I answer "yes" to the question, then I am stipulating to the fact that I was not, but you were. That's what the "or" signifies. It's a one for one substitution.

Thus, if 50% of the 1,000 women in the poll answer that question "yes" you have a 1 out of 2 correspondent answer to extrapolate, not 1 out of 4.

And how do you get 100 billion when the number starts with 2?

You round it off, so it would be: .000,000,000,001, which is 1 in 100 billion. How did you get '1 in 4 trillion'?

Second, why would you raise .25 to the 21st power even if you were correct that 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted? The claim isn't that 25% of women have been sexually assaulted 21 times in their lives, but even if it were, you still wouldn't take .25 to the 21st power. What does the .25 represent? 1 in 4 women in America? 1 in 4 women on the planet? 1 in 4 women to have ever existed?

That number is for America.

Then you should express the actual percentage of total women (50% of 160 Million, or 80 million).

Then it's 1 in 20,000 that she exists.

Still wrong, but even if right, that's still 4,000 women. So the question would then become, if still needed (and it would not be), what are the chances that 1 out of 4,000 women would write about their experiences?

The odds of what happening once? .25 does not represent the odds of a woman being sexually assaulted. It represents (incorrectly) the percentage who have reported being assaulted. But even if you take 50% as the number having been assaulted (and assume that is underreported), that still does not mean that the odds of a woman being sexually assaulted once are 50%

No. It's the number who say they were ever assaulted (in surveys rigged to produce a higher number.)

What? Never mind. It's irrelevant. No matter how you slice it, your assumptions are wrong; your math is wrong; and your point--if there ever was one--defeated.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The poll question was have you or someone you know been sexually assaulted? Let's say you are the person I know that has been sexually assaulted. If I answer "yes" to the question, then I am stipulating to the fact that I was not, but you were. That's what the "or" signifies. It's a one for one substitution.

Thus, if 50% of the 1,000 women in the poll answer that question "yes" you have a 1 out of 2 correspondent answer to extrapolate, not 1 out of 4.

The thing is you have no idea of how many people they told and thus no conclusions can be drawn from the data.

You round it off, so it would be: .000,000,000,001, which is 1 in 100 billion. How did you get '1 in 4 trillion'?

Quite a roundoff converting a 2 to a 1. And I think you're off by a decimal place.

Second, why would you raise .25 to the 21st power even if you were correct that 1 in 4 women have been sexually assaulted? The claim isn't that 25% of women have been sexually assaulted 21 times in their lives, but even if it were, you still wouldn't take .25 to the 21st power. What does the .25 represent? 1 in 4 women in America? 1 in 4 women on the planet? 1 in 4 women to have ever existed?

That number is for America.

Then you should express the actual percentage of total women (50% of 160 Million, or 80 million).

Then it's 1 in 20,000 that she exists.

Still wrong, but even if right, that's still 4,000 women. So the question would then become, if still needed (and it would not be), what are the chances that 1 out of 4,000 women would write about their experiences?

Huh? I said 1 in 20,000 that there is such a woman, not 1 in 20,000 women! After our discussion of billions vs trillions how can you get it so wrong??

The odds of what happening once? .25 does not represent the odds of a woman being sexually assaulted. It represents (incorrectly) the percentage who have reported being assaulted. But even if you take 50% as the number having been assaulted (and assume that is underreported), that still does not mean that the odds of a woman being sexually assaulted once are 50%

No. It's the number who say they were ever assaulted (in surveys rigged to produce a higher number.)

What? Never mind. It's irrelevant. No matter how you slice it, your assumptions are wrong; your math is wrong; and your point--if there ever was one--defeated.

That 25% includes some questions about actions that the women didn't describe as rape but which the surveyors did. The problem is a discussion of sexual problems in the relationship could meet their definition of rape.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The thing is you have no idea of how many people they told and thus no conclusions can be drawn from the data.

Once again, the question (in the poll I first posted), was have you or a family member or a friend ever been sexually assaulted?

So the answer is always either "yes "(I have OR a family member OR a friend has, all of which equals exactly 1 instance of sexual assault being attested to) or "no."

The question is NOT: have you AND a family member AND a friend been sexually assaulted?

Because 50% chose "yes," IF you are going to extrapolate at all you have no other choice but to extrapolate 50% of all women have been sexually assaulted from that data.

But even if you were correct, then all that means is that each woman responding "Yes" would only ALSO be attesting to more women being sexually assaulted, not less.

Iow, if I were sexually assaulted AND my best friend was sexually assaulted, then my "yes" would only count as one instance of sexaul assault, not two. So the numbers can only increase, not decrease.

End of this pointless derail.

 

[Elixir]

Meanwhile... another Trump rape.
Bestie Jeff Epstein getting nailed.
Labor Sec booted.
Kids still in cages.
America is great.

 

[laughing dog]

It's not a measure of how many were assaulted exactly once. Thus your argument falls apart.

Interestingly, that is exactly what people have said about your calculation, but you stand by it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing is you have no idea of how many people they told and thus no conclusions can be drawn from the data.

Once again, the question (in the poll I first posted), was have you or a family member or a friend ever been sexually assaulted?

So the answer is always either "yes "(I have OR a family member OR a friend has, all of which equals exactly 1 instance of sexual assault being attested to) or "no."

The question is NOT: have you AND a family member AND a friend been sexually assaulted?

Because 50% chose "yes," IF you are going to extrapolate at all you have no other choice but to extrapolate 50% of all women have been sexually assaulted from that data.

But even if you were correct, then all that means is that each woman responding "Yes" would only ALSO be attesting to more women being sexually assaulted, not less.

Iow, if I were sexually assaulted AND my best friend was sexually assaulted, then my "yes" would only count as one instance of sexaul assault, not two. So the numbers can only increase, not decrease.

End of this pointless derail.

It's not that it's the only conclusion you can draw from the data, but rather that there's no useful conclusion you can draw about how many were raped. All it sets is an upper bound. I strongly suspect this is from some piece-of-shit "research" designed to deceive those who read about it in the popular press.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not a measure of how many were assaulted exactly once. Thus your argument falls apart.

Interestingly, that is exactly what people have said about your calculation, but you stand by it.

They have said it, they haven't shown it.