15% of UT undergrad women victim of rape. Fake News?

I question these stories more than I used to. What is the definition of rape here?

In a statement from the University, J.B. Bird, director of media relations, confirmed the figure and defined rape in the context of the report as rape “either through force, threat of force, incapacitation or other forms of coercion such as lies and verbal pressure.”
​

If sex following verbal pressure counts as rape, I suppose those "rapes" would amount for 90% of the total.

http://dailytexanonline.com/2017/03/24/survey-to-reveal-campus-rape-statistics

 

It does seem these definitions are getting a little loose. My chief complaint with all this is that the university is becoming the focal point for criminal investigation of these incidents. These are crimes. They should involve real police. Universities should not be the cops in this scheme. As soon as an accusation is made, real cops are notified and the university gets the heck out of the way and stays the heck out of the way until there is a conviction. Universities are poorly equipped to handle the criminal aspects of all of this. Their role should simply be to promote legal behavior and inform the real police if something does happen.

 

There is a very strong political narrative being pushed to make college campuses look like massive bastions of rape. That's why you get these BS definitions that no normal person would ever consider to be rape.

 

"Incapacitation"

I assume that means drunk sex. If that's the case I'm surprised is not more like 50%.

 

And if a drunk guy and a drunk girl have sex, which gets to claim to have been raped?

 

This topic is so sticky I always feel hesitant to comment on it. The legitimate cases are absolutely disgusting and turn my stomach to no end.

At the same time it's more common than most think for a scorned ex-partner to twist an unquestionably consensual event and threaten a false accusation.

"Verbal pressure" was the part of the definition that really made me wince.

The number of college aged males who've verbally persuaded an initially hesitant female into consensual sex is beyond counting.

All it takes is for male to lose interest afterwards and the female develops strong regret.

With a little survey induced reflection using that definition, wouldn't be a stretch for her to conclude she didn't want to have sex but he verbally pressured her to agree.

 

That's because it's so subjective and arbitrary. What is "verbal pressure?" If it's actually threatening the woman (especially with physical violence), then of course that's rape. But I wouldn't be surprised if "pressure" in this context is broad enough to include any form of persuasion.

And let's be honest. Some dudes are famous actors or pro athletes. They're super rich, have perfect hair, chiseled bodies, etc., and girls just throw their clothes off for them without hesitation. Most of us aren't in that situation. To attract a woman's interest, it pretty much always takes at least some degree of verbal smoothness, and we hone that skill for years before it becomes effective. We might attract her with our charm, sense of humor, intellect, etc. Does that constitute "verbal pressure?" Some guys lie in that process. I've known guys who faked being a fighter pilot, faked a skiing injury to get a Bay Watch girl to sleep with him (It was Nicole Eggert, and yes, it worked.), faked being a major league baseball player, and more. Did those guys do something morally wrong? Yes. Did they commit rape? Absolutely not.

 

Maybe every guy should wear a body camera to record the entire process and preserve the evidence.

 

Former Dallas Cowboys offensive tackle, Erik Williams used to do something similar. When he hooked up with a girl, they always went to his house, where he had cameras. He didn't do it because he was a pervert (though he probably was). He did it to defeat rape allegations.

 

The guys in "Wedding Crashers" would be toast. And that's even before considering the reference "did you play a little game called just the tip?".

 

Ya think?

 

Down in the weeds of the Dallas Morning News write up were a few interesting stats;
43 % of LBGTQ undergrads report student perpetrated sexual harassment. ( whatever that means but 43%? were the perps LGBTQ or hetero?)
AND
10% of UTD male graduate students experienced "unwanted" sexual touching compared with 6% of female graduate students.
The system wide rape rate for undergraduate women was 10%
which dropped to 6% when all students including men and all graduate students were included. ( i guess that means that except for the UTD campus male students don't get "raped" very often)

However even accepting tendencies for both sexes to be less than honest we shouldn't minimize the issue/problem

 

The definition of rape as defined in the article is absurd.

Assuming the 15% rate as defined in the article is accurate, that means that for every 100 women there are 15 victims. Now if you broke down the 15 victims, how many would have actually been raped resulting from force or drugging? I'm guessing one to three. The other 12-14 women are likely having buyer's remorse after willingly having sex or having been talked into it. And here we have some liberal advocate defining that as rape.

 

Bingo. "Buyers remorse" of a scorned female is a powder keg.

With most being highly emotional by nature, the threat is not limited to a small fraction. When dealing with lower maturity levels at this age its highly increased.

This absurd definition recklessly provides a torch to light the fuse for payback.

 

I wouldn't minimize the issue at all. If you forcibly rape somebody, the death penalty should at least be on the table. However, the problem is that the feminists who raise the issue have blown their credibility with deceptive definitions of "rape" and "sexual assault" and fake rape stories (See Lena Dunham, Duke lacrosse story, Rolling Stone's dalliance in libel, etc., etc.) in order to drive a false narrative and a political agenda. Honestly, I think they're doing a tremendous disservice to real rape victims.

 

Absolutely NO doubt feminists have distorted and abused the term rape to fit their agenda. Yes they have blown THEIR credibility and are doing a diserivice. That shouldn't mean all allegations of rape have no credibility does it?
My point is that I know it does go on. I am sure the percentage is inflated just as I am sure 10% of male graduate students at UTD were not sexually harassed.
Just as we should weed out the fake stories we should also address the real rapes.
maybe unless you have not known someone who has been raped it may be hard to see beyond the fake case.

 

No, this doesn't mean all allegations of rape have no credibility. Just as in every other case, a rape victim's testimony should be judged on its own merits and without regard to what others have lied about.

However, I know from professional experience that when others who claim to have suffered are found to have been liars, it heightens a juror's skepticism of similar claims even if they have no reason to disbelieve the person in question. That's why jurors often won't believe people who claim to have soft-tissue injuries (meaning muscle sprain/strain injuries). Too many BSers.

 

If you only read the headline and don't thoroughly critique the methodology used to arrive at 15%, you get a mental picture of The University of Texas at Mogadishu. Would you allow your daughter to attend UT if you figured the odds of her being raped were around 1 in 6?

"Honey, there's a pretty good chance you'll be raped during your four years in Austin; maybe more than once. But if you just persevere, you'll get a quality education. Now let's go buy some orange shirts and we'll get you moved in."

 

The feminists who push this narrative have to have these things adjudicated by the colleges because most of these "cases" would be thrown out by actual police who have to obey due process rules and other such sticky matters.

Feminists want all allegations of rape to be taken seriously, except those leveled against Bill Clinton.

 

The troubling paradox of feminism is that they claim to want independence and equal rights for women while also pushing the idea that women are perpetual victims. In reality, the last thing that feminists want are independent and free thinking women. That would mean that feminist groups and leaders are no longer needed.

 

^we have some VERY independent and free thinking female posters that prove that.

 

Perhaps a female perspective might be good considering the subject...but ...nevermind.

 

A lack of independent and free thinking people is essential to identity politics of all kinds - not just feminism. Identity politics is rooted in the assumption that all (or virtually all) people within the relevant identity have the same interests and largely think alike and without questioning the agenda of that identity's self-ordained leadership. If that assumption isn't generally accurate, the racket falls apart.

 

DJ, I like and welcome the perspectives of women on all topics, but if we're talking about something that is objectively defined by law as rape is, the subjective experiences of the people discussing it are of little consequence.

 

According to the UT study, a guy threatening to break up with a girl if she does not have sex with him is rape.

So think about a scenario this study has included as rape:

Guy: "If you do not have sex with me, I will physically remove myself from this room and you will never see me again."

Girl: "I agree to have sex with you in order to prevent you from leaving me at this moment."

^ It does not matter if you are a guy or girl, if you think that scenario is rape, you are a moron.

This study claiming 15% rapes is not even the work of overboard feminists. It is the working of f***ing, idiocracy level morons.

They want to see what an actual rape looks like? Google Haruka Wieser.

 

I will say unfortunately a lot of people will believe this study is not bogus. It is the same people that believed a UVA fraternity had a gang rape basement and they learned nothing from believing unsubstantiated reports with high shock value headlines using ludicrously incorrect methodology.

 

For the most part I don't know or care who is what age/race/gender here, but ... fire away.

 

Yeah, because objectivity certainly rules this forum. You know that objectivity is but an ideal, one worth striving for but rarely achieved. My point is I am sure you understand the optics of a bunch of men talking about rape. I am sure old Clayton Williams had a similar forum when he uttered his quip. Clarification (forum being a bunch of men, not to imply that anyone here is or is not supportive of the quip, though I would hope not)

 

And yet again, the Liberal ignores the actual argument and dismisses any facts or reality. "Optics" are not an argument. "A bunch of men" must be wrong. An anecdotal event involving Clayton Williams must be a universal truth.

 

I grew up in a culture where women too drunk to testify credibly against you ... basically a Ben Roethlisberger seduction ... were considered fair game by many. I hope we do a better job of education so that there will be many fewer perps and many more protectors in such situations. Personally, I never felt like I was especially smooth, rich, handsome or otherwise attractive. Sex was available, even if I would say things like "I want this, but it's going to change our relationship in ways we can't really anticipate. Lets be sure this is something we both want."