Is rape really as common as the media would have us believe?

Post Reply New Topic

A touchy topic, watch the video at your own discretion. The video discusses rape statistics (from a UK p.o.v.), false rape accusations and what really should count as rape.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcqbXCzp7pE[/youtube]

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/vtcrime.htm

Just look at the statistics. Either there's 10 times the amount of rape today since 1960, or the definition must have changed, for better or worse.

There are many theories, and probably many factors. The reporting rate is certainly up. That's the extent of what we know for sure.

I've heard it suggested that 50 years ago a rapist would just meet with an unfortunate accident in an alley behind a bar, and the police would swear that it was in no way suspicious, because they knew the score as much as anyone else. This dealt with the problem handily, and spared the victim the necessity of a trial. Which is all fine and dandy if they got the right guy.

And yeah, i think if a guy is into violently raping women, we should just go ahead and kill him.

I also think that people are talking more freely about sex in general, and that probably both increased the rate that actual rape is reported rather than not reported, and potentially broadened the definition of "rape" in the social lexicon.

Not to condone it, but a girl who was raped by nature of having gotten piss drunk in the company of a disreputable man who took advantage of her has in no way shared the experience of a girl who was raped by nature of having been pulled into a dark alley on her way home from school by four horny guys.

And 50 years ago, the girl who doesn't know when to stop drinking or which guys to avoid getting drunk with probably branded her attacker as an as*hole rather than as a rapist.

in part the definitions have been changed and i think there is a higher percentage that report it than earlier, both inflating "modern" data in relation to the "older" data set.

Anyone else remember the Duke Lacross rape case where one of the young men accused of raping this woman pretty much had an ironclad alibi. How they were slandered by the media, and the prosecutor and the prosecutor ended up getting charged with prosecutorial misconduct.

anecdote != data, Inuyasha.

Inuyasha has a good point. Prosecutors often put their personal ambitions and sometimes merely their personal feelings above their obligation to handle a case professionally.

Combination of change in the definition and more common reporting- in previous times a woman who was raped might be shamed and thus be unwilling to come forward.

I'm fairly certain that taking unfair advantage of a girl, even if it is prosecuted (and it too often is not), results in a much less severe penalty than violent, forcible rape. Perhaps you object to the two things being called by the same name- fine, make up a new name for the not-quite-rape version of rape. I don't care what you call it. Non-consensual sex, regardless of the details, is a violation of the other person and it deserves to be punished.

That would be hard to do since rapists' tactics have changed since the 1960's baiting or drugging the [usually adult] victim for a premeditated sexual assault (as opposed to being drunk at a party and sleeping with someone who is even more wasted) is far more common than it used to be. Sex crimes are more common than people realize, but it is hard to come up with a reliable statistic. However, that does not excuse a lack of careful screening by detectives and cross-examination by the defense council to help rule out perjury. No adult plaintiff should be allowed to hide behind anonymity either in court or before the press unless the defendant is given the same privilege, the plaintiff should be required to testify and be cross-examined, and if acquitted, the jury should be given the opportunity to consider an indictment against the original plaintiff if they suspect there is reason to believe they deliberately misled the police or the court. If they are convicted, the person they accused may be able to seek civil damages.

Women frequently did not report cases of rape in the 1960's due to shame, embarrassment, fear, and a general blame the victim mentality. The definition of rape has also changed due to a landmark case in the US where a woman was pressing charges against her husband for rape. What ensued was a debate over whether or not forced sex in the context of marriage constituted rape. The courts decided it did. Another issue which was not previously discussed and came to be regarded as rape was sexual intercourse with a person who could not consent, such as an individual who was intoxicated, drugged, or otherwise unconscious or unable to defend themselves.

I know of multiple instances where some of the older women in my family were raped when they were younger or knew someone who was and it was never reported.

I think rape is under reported to this day, especially in non-western countries where women are often killed if they are raped.

As for false accusations. Unfortunately it does happen. Women who make such horrible accusations seem to fall into two categories and I think it's generally easier to spot these girls than it is to spot a rapist. The teen aged girl who doesn't want to get in trouble with her parents, and the low class player "skank" who didn't get her way.

Last edited by Chronos on 09 Sep 2011, 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

And then there's the julian assange debacle.

Granted, assange is an ass. I even agree with his objectives and think he's an ass.

The weird thing about the "rape" allegations against him is, most women don't have breakfast with their rapist the next day.

Just sayin.

The other weird thing about that debacle was that the women didn't go to the police to report rape, but to see if they could have him compelled to be tested for STIs. It was the Prosecutor's office who decided to call it 'rape,' and then changed their mind, and then changed their mind again.

I think they should get the same sentence as the falsely accused. Not that I believe in the bible, but doesn't the bible call that "false witness".

If it could be proved without a doubt that the accusation was false, as in the Duke LaCross team case, yes they should be punished. However if it's simply a case of DNA exoneration or someone being found not guilty due to lack of evidence then I don't think the accuser should be punished because you may very well end up punishing a person who was raped and I think that would have the effect of making victims afraid to come forward, and rapists more likely to commit multiple rapes.

A lot of the accusers of men who exonerated by DNA actually were raped, they just mis-identified their attacker.

Or maybe more rape cases are reported now than in 1960 because chances are women are more informed and open about it.

In 1960, people were NOT open to hearing about it. This was decades before 'date rape' and 'no means NO' came along. Women who were raped were considered suspect in their lives, their characters and the company they kept. How you walked, how you held yourself in public, and where you were were were all open for public discussion. The idea that you 'must have brought it on yourself' was the norm. Men were rarely held responsible, even if a child was part of it.

I know, it sounds like Medieval times,doesn't it? But it wasn't. I was just 50 years ago. So I say it was probably even more prevalent then than now, it is just more permissible to talk about it now.