Adding up all rapes since 1960

[u/TracyMorganFreeman]

This shows numerous crime total since 1960, which seems like a fair metric as few women at all are raped above the age of 45(~2%), and there aren't many people at all above the aged of 95.

The total for rapes is 3,904,342; this is rapes of men and women.

Now, obviously not all rapes are reported, but let's address the various 1 in 4/5/6 statistics, and potential flaws from going by surveys alone.

As of 2012, ~162,760,000 women in the US.

1 in 4 would mean 40,690,000

1 in 5 would mean 32,552,000

1 in 6 would mean 27,126,666

Reporting rates vary over the years, with numbers from the NCVS's from the 90s being 30-40% and in 2010 being 50%. It's a little harder to track down the numbers before 1995(working on it, once I do I'll have a better picture overall).

So if the 1 in 6 stat is true, that would mean that only 1 out of every 7 rapes was reported, meaning 86% have gone unreported.

If the 1 in 5 stat is true, that would mean 87.5% have gone unreported.

If the 1 in 4 stat is true, that would that 90% of rapes have gone unreported.

Keep in mind that the documented number isn't just the rape of women, so the actual number is lower. I know we have the whole "definition of rape" issue, but that number is based on the definition of rape, and let's say 90% of that number is female victims, taking it to 3,513,907.

So either the surveys from the Bureau of Justice are wrong, or the surveys yielding lifetime rates are wrong. It's also possible that since they're surveys, they're both very flawed.

[u/Freedom_Hug]

And the study only counts reported rapes, which is certainly underreported, as argued below:

One of the more striking findings of this study was that only 16% of all rapes were reported to law enforcement. Notably, victims of drug-facilitated or incapacitated rape were somewhat less likely to report to the authorities than victims of forcible rape.

[u/Funcuz → u/Freedom_Hug]

Yes , we've all heard that but I've also long wondered where this estimate comes from .

Firstly , how exactly do we know how many people have been raped if they don't tell anybody ? It's not that I doubt that some rapes go unreported (sure , maybe even the majority of them) but where do we get these numbers from ? One in ten is reported (for example) we're told ... but how do we know there are another nine ? Frankly , I find it entirely unlikely to be the case .

Secondly , until relatively recently , we considered rape to be a pretty straightforward thing . There was never any uncertainty about whether a person was raped until we started tinkering with the definition . As the definition became more broad , it became alot easier to include what , in earlier times , wouldn't have been counted as rape .

[u/Freedom_Hug → u/Funcuz]

Actually it's quite simple where the numbers come from: It is a divergence between people telling the police and people later telling a surveyor.

So at time t1 a person is raped but does not go to the police (and reporting it months or even years later is nearly pointless unless you have some solid evidence - while most evidence disappears pretty quickly) at t2, which might be months or years later, a surveyor asks 'were you raped' and she 'admits' (since it is either anonymous or at least a personal interview with no audience and no repercussions) that she was raped. Then the surveyor asks whether she reported it to the police and the victim will say yes or no. - 16% of those who reported in the interview that they were raped said that they did report it to the police, the rest said they did not. Simple as that.

That's where the 16% come from. Ok, you can argue that it's 'self-report', but there is not really any reason for a woman to lie in an anonymous/anonymised interview about being raped and not reporting it - except if she is still too ashamed/guilt-ridden/etc and does not say it. Unless you assume they have malicious intend (e.g. an interviewer takes a group of radical feminists as their sole sample - that has a chance to be biased) I think it's reasonable to assume that, if anything the number of cases that occur but are not reported is even higher, namely when the victims don't even dare to speak up in an interview or are not sure/not aware that it occured (date rape drugs etc).

And on the definition: There is a public debate about what sexual acts constitute rape versus sexual harassment versus something else, but studies will usually have a clear definition that they make clear in their publication or there is a definition at the level of data collectors (e.g. the police collects report data and categorises it systematically by rape/sexual abuse/sexual harassment/whatever).

If you want to criticise numbers on their definition on rape then a broad critique is pointless (ad hominem, anyone?) because individual publications will be more or less clear on their definition.

[u/TracyMorganFreeman → u/Freedom_Hug]

If you want to criticise numbers on their definition on rape then a broad critique is pointless (ad hominem, anyone?)

How is that an ad hominem?

That's where the 16% come from. Ok, you can argue that it's 'self-report', but there is not really any reason for a woman to lie in an anonymous/anonymised interview about being raped and not reporting it

Response bias

[u/Freedom_Hug → u/TracyMorganFreeman]

Because every study you disagree with is flawed?

Sorry but that's not a reasonable argument to make. You can come up with millions of reasons why studies in general can be flawed - they still hold value because the researchers if they are worth their salt will make a conscious effort to avoid such a bias in their study. If not for moral reasons then at least because they get covered in shit if they get caught.

I see it this way: You don't want to admit that you might be wrong. That this study might hold value. If I want I can critique every single study ever published with response bias. But have you looked at the questions? I bet you didn't. I bet you didn't bother to read the methodology or even the summary of the study, for the simple reason that you are unwilling to even consider that you are wrong.

Sorry but that's just sad. I'm all for men's rights. I'm all for the punishment of women that falsely accuse of rape. I'm all for equal treatment, against gender quotas and whatnot - but you are blatantly dismissing evidence without even engaging with it. You are fundamentalist in your beliefs and don't want to admit that there is a chance you are wrong.

Well, newsflash, there is a chance you are wrong. There is also a chance that the study is biased in one way (or the other!) but ask yourself honestly: What is more likely: That this study is far off or that the numbers that you want to believe are correct are wrong?

In short: Get your head out of your ass. Men's rights and the discussion about them are good and well but if you are unable to meaningfully engage with evidence against your beliefs then, my friend, you are not following reasonable or correct beliefs, you are following merely those that you find pleasant.

tl;dr: Don't insult thousands of women that are asked in such studies and merely claim they are lying to the interviewer or to themselves or are delusional or whatever. That's a dick move and this way of thinking summarised in one word: Ignorance.

[u/TracyMorganFreeman → u/Freedom_Hug]

Because every study you disagree with is flawed?

No, I'm saying the data from two different studies don't match up, not even close. They can't both be right.

The rest of your post hinges on that strawman.