Why do feminists say 'teach men not to rape'?

I'm not sure why there's so much fuss over getting an accurate statistic of how many women get raped. I understand that having a solid figure helps to emphasise the actual scale of the problem, but it's never going to be accurate. From a legal standpoint, many cases are not reported and many more remain unproven. You then get some cases (arguably a small number, but still noteworthy) that are false accusations. There are also a handful of women who are murdered after (or even before) they are raped, or who commit suicide shortly after, and so are not accounted for in surveys. Rape statistics will also vary between countries and different areas, so sample sizes can be too complicated to organise appropriately. Then comes the definition of rape, which varies from source to source and between legal systems.

So can we all just agree that the statistic is worryingly high, and that something needs to be done. Whether or not the real figure is close to 20% doesn't change the fact that it's a problem.

Ugh. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/13/rape-investigations-belief-false-accusations
There were 35 cases of false rape allegations out of 5651 rape prosecutions. That's in in 181, which is about 0.005%. 20% of women in the US have been raped. We have bigger issues than false rape allegations.

The above points have been addressed in the previous post so I'm not going to write another essay about that.



I've no conclusive study showing the collated employment and personal backgrounds of all convicted rapists. However, one can get there through logic. What is considered 'normal' is determined by the what the vast majority of people in a given system consider to be both common and acceptable. Go to a prison and having committed an imprisonable offence would be considered normal. Let's assume there's a 1:1 ratio of males to female in a given population (there isn't but let's say there is, for simplicity). So if 20 percent of women report having been raped in their lifetimes, that's 10 percent of the total population (as 20 percent of 50 percent (as per the 1:1 assumption) is 10 percent) that has reported being raped in their lifetime. Let's also assume that each of these rapes involved a minimum of one rapist for each rape victim (there are probably gang rapes so the number is likely to be higher than one for some rapes). This means that at least 10 percent of the population are rapists. This is much too large to be attributed to Machiavellian individuals who don't have normal lives and have mental health issues/mental illness (which are the same thing anyway) worthy of them being considered abnormal and in need of help.

Just to put it into perspective: this implies that 6.4 million people in Britain are rapists. The definition which I used to describe a 'normal' life earlier was to have one of the following: a job, family, or other commitment. From a quick Wikipedia search, I can see that there were only 2.34 million Britons classed as 'unemployed' at the start of 2014 (couldn't find the 2015 stats, sorry). That would mean that the other ~4.06 million rapists, by the metrics listed above, satisfy at least one of the conditions of having a 'normal' life until they commit rape. That's 63.4 percent of rapists who have normal lives - a majority. Now it depends what you consider the appropriate use of the word 'most' but, at the very least, this should be enough to prove the claim that the majority of rapists are normal people before committing a rape (assuming they're not murderers or thieves or anything else that might disrupt this thought experiment). It's also worth noting that I've minimised the number of rapists per rape earlier to one so, if we had actual figures, it would likely be higher since gang rapes would be included.

My brain feels thoroughly ****ed after that cold and clinical analysis of rape stats.



But they cannot predict with perfect accuracy that this will continue in future. That's what I've been trying to say the whole time: the past is not a perfect indicator of the future.



Ugh... For the last time, it does not. I'm not saying that the number will definitely be lower, the same, or higher. All I'm saying is that it will not necessarily be the same figure from now until forever more. If you think you can predict the future, I'd like some evidence, please.

Still haven't sourced that 20% figure fam, which is the one I'm much more concerned about.

That's actually not true.
The statistically largest category of rape sexual offenders are partners or ex partners of the victim, followed by "other known" such as friends and co-workers. Then followed by strangers. And them the least prevalent group of family members.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/214970/sexual-offending-overview-jan-2013.pdf

This is only reported offences; family rapes are the least reported. Moreover, as someone else pointed above, rapes on minors are not counted here (cf. footnote p.19).

It's not the argument itself that gets to me, it's the sheer idiocy of the thought that makes me cry with laughter.

What about serial rapists, and serial criminals? According to this source (http://sapac.umich.edu/article/52), "Most every perpetrator is a serial rapist, meaning that they choose to use coercion, violence, threats of force, etc., to assault people on a repeated basis." Most rapists do not receive any sort of punishment, and most of these cases are not even reported.

This means that there are not necessarily 6 million rapists in the UK, the real figure is unknown, because serial criminals and rapists exist, and furthermore, the real number of women getting raped is unknown considering they'er often never reported.

You also kind of just assumed that just because a person is unemployed, that means that that person is thorougly ****ed up which isn't true

, a lot of people with mental illnesses, especially psychopaths as you so desperately wanted to prove wasn't true have very well-paid jobs and are quite educated. I never talked about unemployment, you did.

Holy ****. "One can get there through logic." Oh, God. No. Try again.

I already admitted that I was wrong; it doesn't tell the future necessarily,

but it does show that 20% of all women have experienced sexual assault, which is an alarmingly high number, and we do have bigger concerns (such as this very high rate of rapes) than false rape allegations, which is at the same level as false crime allegations in general.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/20/living/feat-rape-freshmen-women-new-study/
https://rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims (that one doesn't include sexual assault)
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf

It took me around 5 seconds to Google this. It shouldn't be that hard.

Good point on family rapes being the least reported. Though that does not mean by any stretch they are the most common form of rape, that is poor speculation at best. True this is adult rape cases only, you're going into an entirely new spiders web with minor rape.

I agree that it is speculation, but all stats trying to show to the prevalence of rapes in society are speculation.

Believe it or not, most rapists aren't evil psychopaths that everyone paints them to be purely because it's an easier concept to deal with. It's not that black and white. Most of them are just normal people who did a horrible thing, many feel remorse and guilt.

Somewhere is their lives they went the wrong way, their morals became skewed ect. There are many factors that can lead someone to rape.

It's important for us as a society to not only understand how this happens, but also to help prevent this.

Edit: for the easily emotionally charged and those who overreact. No, I'm not saying that rapists aren't accountable for their own actions. Stop jumping to conclusions.

It's not the argument itself that gets to me, it's the sheer idiocy of the thought that makes me cry with laughter.
What about serial rapists, and serial criminals? According to this source (http://sapac.umich.edu/article/52), "Most every perpetrator is a serial rapist, meaning that they choose to use coercion, violence, threats of force, etc., to assault people on a repeated basis." Most rapists do not receive any sort of punishment, and most of these cases are not even reported.

So can we teach women not to rape as well?

I'm about to give up on this any minute now, given your circular logic and refusal to admit you're wrong when confronted with logic and evidence.



That's funny, because your entire conversation has been about nothing but the argument and now that I've proven you wrong, it's suddenly about the 'sheer idiocy.' Well, 'sheer idiocy' does not a false statement make.



A most regrettable miscarriage of justice which, despite what you may think, doesn't justify making false claims about anything. Also, what the hell does 'most every' mean? I realise that's not your typo because I've clicked on the link, but that's pretty damn ambiguous.

While you could use that to reduce the figures from the previous posts, I have no reason to think that it would move by much considering I excluded gang rapes from the calculation to provide a minimum figure.



What exactly do you want me? What will it take to make you concede the point, if not logic and evidence? You claimed repeatedly, including in the post I'm replying to, that 20 percent of all women are raped. So I used that figure to logically estimate the number of rapists in the UK (because you also claimed that it's static so it's the same in the US and the UK), now it turns out that the 20 percent figure is uncertain because the real number isn't known. Make up your bloody mind. And also, if you're bringing under-reporting into this, that surely translate to an increase in the figure, if all the logic from the previous post is followed? Of course, it may be that the increase is offset by the existence of serial rapists but I have no reason to think, given the balancing factors, that the number deviates all that much from 6 million.

In all honesty, you're doing what a lot of religious people I argue with tend to do: instead of looking at the evidence and coming to a view, you've got a view and a desire not to give up those views, so you continue to dodge, bend, and manipulate the evidence to either hold onto your view or at least erode the other person's numbers enough (like you tried by implying that my numbers are rubbish because they don't account for serial rapists) to justify holding onto your views.



No, although that's an excellent straw man. I defended SophieSmall's post saying that most rapists have otherwise normal lives and added, as an example, that what society would consider 'normal' would be things like employment, having a family, having other commitments. The words '****ed up in the head' and 'psycho' were used by you, not me. It's interesting you didn't complain about this definition of 'normal' when I first said it. It gives the impression that you're grasping at straws.



You're the only one desperately trying to prove anything here. I'm just trying to prove something with logic and evidence; there's nothing 'desperate' about it. Ironically, the claim in bold is one thing that I didn't try to prove. You never talked about unemployment sure, but you didn't complain about it until it became convenient for you to exclude having a job as being an activity we associate with being part of a 'normal' life.



Are you giving up? Or have you resorted to emotion again? I used your own damn 20 percent figure to logically estimate (since we don't have numbers for gang rape and serial rapists) the number of rapists in Britain. You either give up this figure, or admit you're wrong. There's no two ways about it.



This is the first time that you have although it's nice to see you're trying to change your words retrospectively. If you'd come into this argument with an open mind, it would be over by now.


And there's the 20 percent figure you chastised me for using in this very post... Either give this figure up, or give up your views. They're incompatible.

Also, this 'rape' has somehow changed to 'sexual assault.' I'm sure I'm not going to get an explanation for that, just more 'holy ****, try again' type responses.

I don't think it's a bigger concern than the rate of rape itself. They're both big concerns, one because it destroys you psychologically and physically and the other because it ruins a man's (or woman's) life to be accused of rape. If it turns out to be false, the resulting sentence, in my view, should be equal to what the accused would have gotten if he'd/she'd raped someone. There's no excuse for destroying somebody's life that way.

If the majority of rapes are committed by a small number of men, then "teaching men not to rape" will have no effect, since they precisely don't rape - only a tiny number of them do, and they won't be receptive to educational courses anyway.

If "most of these cases are not even reported", then, the sensible response to this would be to increase the "report rate" by "teaching girls to report rapes immediately". It would have better results.

I ain't googling to back up your points, they're your points not mine.

Anyways, all of that seems to quote the ol' CDC numbers. Gotta love that study...
http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-1-in-5-women-have-not-been-raped-on-college-campuses/article/2551980

You know I'm cool with people being against rape and all, but I don't like it when people parrot blatantly dodgy stats to scare the pants off people, unnecessarily creating panic and a climate of fear about being raped is not productive.

1) The first source is extremely biased, and comments about how CDC defines rape as "unable to consent", (which is the actual definition of rape) such as when they're drunk, on drugs, or sleeping, and how that is unfair and stupid and how they should take responsibility and yadda yadda yadda and the second one isn't even discussing the CDC report but okay. Nice job.

Yes it is, half way down the page.
Both of the links that you've just been shown and their sources bring the CDC report findings into serious question.

"The CDC survey also asked a question about sexual contact while “drunk, high, drugged or passed out and unable to consent.” The question did not make it clear that it applied only to instances of unwanted sexual contact.
“Now, 61.5 percent of the women the CDC projected as rape victims in 2010 experienced what the CDC called quote ‘alcohol and drug-facilitated penetration,’ ” Hoff Sommers said. “If a woman was unconscious or incapacitated, then every civilized person would call it rape.”

“But what about sex while inebriated?” Hoff Sommers continued. “I mean, few people would say that intoxicated sex alone constitutes rape, indeed a nontrivial percentage of all customary sexual intimacy — including marital sex — probably falls under that definition.”"

Except, no, it didn't. It mentions a CDC 2010 study. The one I'm referring to was made in 2011. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=ss6308a1_e
Alcohol and drug-facilitated penetration is never mentioned in the second study.
Cheers.