I think Ted himself said it best. (from the linked reply)
"There is a spectrum of what can be considered "rape". One of the things which I think is dishonest is when the loosest possible definition of rape is used when creating the statistics, but when it comes down to saying how horribly women are affected by rape, the worst possible scenario is used.
If the statistics include cases where both college students are drunk, and sexual penetration occurs, and since the women didn't give consent, obviously its rape, then it's fair to ask what percentage of the statistics are this sort of case, and what percentage of the cases are one where the women is jumped from behind in Central Park by a strange, and raped at knifepoint.
Surely you recognize the two cases might be somewhat different?"
Ted's only crime was not being politically correct, he went out of his way to say he wasn't trying to diminish rape or anyone's personal experience with rape. He was just saying it's dishonest to say 1/4 women were raped because most people equate the word "rape" with the worst kind of rape (violent sexual assault by an unknown assailant). And before you say it, NO I'M NOT SAYING drunk sex without consent (man or woman being drunk) is ok. But to put it all under the umbrella term of "rape" is very misleading and dishonest.
Just like saying "10 million cats are murdered each year" but not mentioning that you're factoring in cats that are accidentally run over by cars.
Of course people like you will take what I just wrote and twist it into some Gawkeresque headline "Rape apologist equates rape victims with dead cats". That's seriously all you people do, you evade the honest debate, ignore facts and instead just use name calling like "rape apologist" or "sexist". You are too blinded by your own dogma to see otherwise.
Did you even read the article Ted linked to? Here's a good excerpt.
"Only about a quarter of the women Koss calls rape victims labeled what happened to them as rape. According to Koss, the answers to the follow-up questions revealed that “only 27 percent” of the women she counted as having been raped labeled themselves as rape victims"
In other words Koss herself determined those women were rape victims even though the women themselves didn't describe what happened to them as rape.
The numbers you can cook up are endless if you have no problem being misleading and have a loose interpretation of words. You could add women who were groped in the subway as being raped (a sexual assault that doesn't involved intercourse) and you'd get what? "90% of women have been raped in their lifetime"?
Oh and if someone questions if it's honest to label groping in the subway as rape they're just labeled a rape apologist and defending subway groping.
Power management, mobile and firmware developer on Linux. Security developer at Aurora. Ex-biologist. mjg59 on Twitter. Content here should not be interpreted as the opinion of my employer. Also on Mastodon.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-10-29 11:45 pm (UTC)"There is a spectrum of what can be considered "rape". One of the
things which I think is dishonest is when the loosest possible
definition of rape is used when creating the statistics, but when it
comes down to saying how horribly women are affected by rape, the
worst possible scenario is used.
If the statistics include cases where both college students are drunk,
and sexual penetration occurs, and since the women didn't give
consent, obviously its rape, then it's fair to ask what percentage of
the statistics are this sort of case, and what percentage of the cases
are one where the women is jumped from behind in Central Park by a
strange, and raped at knifepoint.
Surely you recognize the two cases might be somewhat different?"
Ted's only crime was not being politically correct, he went out of his way to say he wasn't trying to diminish rape or anyone's personal experience with rape. He was just saying it's dishonest to say 1/4 women were raped because most people equate the word "rape" with the worst kind of rape (violent sexual assault by an unknown assailant). And before you say it, NO I'M NOT SAYING drunk sex without consent (man or woman being drunk) is ok. But to put it all under the umbrella term of "rape" is very misleading and dishonest.
Just like saying "10 million cats are murdered each year" but not mentioning that you're factoring in cats that are accidentally run over by cars.
Of course people like you will take what I just wrote and twist it into some Gawkeresque headline "Rape apologist equates rape victims with dead cats". That's seriously all you people do, you evade the honest debate, ignore facts and instead just use name calling like "rape apologist" or "sexist". You are too blinded by your own dogma to see otherwise.
Did you even read the article Ted linked to? Here's a good excerpt.
"Only about a quarter of the women Koss calls rape
victims labeled what happened to them as
rape. According to Koss, the answers to the
follow-up questions revealed that “only 27
percent” of the women she counted as having
been raped labeled themselves as rape victims"
In other words Koss herself determined those women were rape victims even though the women themselves didn't describe what happened to them as rape.
http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/Readings/RapeCultureSummers.pdf
The numbers you can cook up are endless if you have no problem being misleading and have a loose interpretation of words. You could add women who were groped in the subway as being raped (a sexual assault that doesn't involved intercourse) and you'd get what? "90% of women have been raped in their lifetime"?
Oh and if someone questions if it's honest to label groping in the subway as rape they're just labeled a rape apologist and defending subway groping.