What college rape epidemic???

[rousseau]

Interesting thread.

Regardless of the statistics and where rape is *most likely* to occur, it's easy to agree that rape is a biological problem that happens everywhere on a scale that we'd like to lessen.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yup. They don't get enough rapes looking at the data honestly so they rigged things to list women as raped when they weren't raped.

Actually, different agencies used different methodologies and different definitions of rape and sexual assault. The rest is just stuff that ronburgundy is making up and Loren is agreeing with.

The problem is that their "different definition" is far from actual rape.

Another problem is the fact that 58% of the people given the survey did not bother to complete it and return it. That is a massive sampling bias, and nothing in their methods deals with the fact that non-responders are generally people who do not see the survey as relevant to them, which in this case means they were not raped even by the researchers loose definition of it. It could easily be that nearly all non-responders would not qualify as being raped by their definition, making the number closer to 1 in 11, with many or most of those being people who mutually groped or kissed their regular sexual partner while intoxicated and not "raped" or assaulted as the concept is understood by the vast majority of people.

Yup. A non-response level like that really hurts the data.

You have got to be kidding. A response rate of 42 percent is actually a high response rate to a random survey. It's extremely high if you view those surveyed as the general public or even as members/customers.

But nice try at blaming women again.

Just because it's a good response rate for a random survey doesn't make it a good response rate. Most surveys have pretty bad response rates--which makes their conclusions quite questionable.

 

[laughing dog]

Just because it's a good response rate for a random survey doesn't make it a good response rate.

Yes it does.

Most surveys have pretty bad response rates--which makes their conclusions quite questionable.

That depends on the representativeness and size of the resulting sample.

 

[ronburgundy]

Yup. They don't get enough rapes looking at the data honestly so they rigged things to list women as raped when they weren't raped.

Actually, different agencies used different methodologies and different definitions of rape and sexual assault. The rest is just stuff that ronburgundy is making up and Loren is agreeing with.

Nope. The linked article to the researchers show that that the 1 in 5 rates come from surveys that include intoxicated kissing with a long-time partner as "rape". As does, every other survey used to claim anything close to 1 in 5 rates.

Another problem is the fact that 58% of the people given the survey did not bother to complete it and return it. That is a massive sampling bias, and nothing in their methods deals with the fact that non-responders are generally people who do not see the survey as relevant to them, which in this case means they were not raped even by the researchers loose definition of it. It could easily be that nearly all non-responders would not qualify as being raped by their definition, making the number closer to 1 in 11, with many or most of those being people who mutually groped or kissed their regular sexual partner while intoxicated and not "raped" or assaulted as the concept is understood by the vast majority of people.

Yup. A non-response level like that really hurts the data.

You have got to be kidding. A response rate of 42 percent is actually a high response rate to a random survey. It's extremely high if you view those surveyed as the general public or even as members/customers

.

The fact that there is a lot of shoody research using methods that yield highly biased samples, doesn't change the fact that the data is low quality and biased.
Different surveys, depending upon the topic, will produce different types and levels of biased response rates. A survey about rape and victimization is probably more likely than just about any to differ whether the self-reported victimization is a factor in determining in whether someone responded or does not because they see it as irrelevant and to them and thus not worth their time. 58% non-responders could easily mean that the bias inflates the true rates by more than double.

But nice try at blaming women again.

????How ispointing out objective limits to the methodology that greatly impact the findings "blaming women"? There is nothing remotely wrong with not responding to surveys, only with making pseudo-science claims based upon ignoring the statistical impact that a below-half response rate produces.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Actually, different agencies used different methodologies and different definitions of rape and sexual assault. The rest is just stuff that ronburgundy is making up and Loren is agreeing with.

Nope. The linked article to the researchers show that that the 1 in 5 rates come from surveys that include intoxicated kissing with a long-time partner as "rape". As does, every other survey used to claim anything close to 1 in 5 rates.

And any sex to keep a partner happy is likewise classed as rape. It would always be rape if a prostitute has sex no matter how free she was in making the choice to be a prostitute.