UK Telegraph twisting scientific data in an anti-women way

Das Kitty

I subscribe to Ben Goldacre's Bad Science blog (some of which is published in the Guardian) and he had something in it this week that really boiled by blood.

He was talking about this article in the UK Telegraph. Even looking at the title you know it's total rubbish, but the fact that it was taken from an unfinished study entitled "Promiscuous Men More Likely to Rape" by a PHD student who refutes all the claims made by the paper in her name really really pisses me off.

They basically just made it up.

It's absolutely disgusting that they can print this misogynistic BS and just carry on as normal.

There's a link to the full Bad Science Article here.

Riverpineapple

The article may or may not be true but the article does not say that women should not be allowed to be sexy or outgoing. Mysogyny is a hatred of women or girls, I don't see evidence of that in the article. I suggest not letting other people's opinions have such emotional control over you. Life's too short.

MissFlitworth

Riverpineapple wrote: »

The article may or may not be true but the article does not say that women should not be allowed to be sexy or outgoing.

It does however say that women who are dressed in a sexy manner or are outgoing (!!!) are more likely to be raped, and that this information is taken from a scientific study. Lying about the contents of a study which was about the likelihood of promiscuous men raping people (and making someones Master's dissertation out to be a study from 'scientists at the University of Leicester') in order to scare women seems pretty misogynistic to me, it perpetuates that horrible idea that you should shut up and cover up if you want to keep yourself safe.

It's a horrible article, with a horrible accompanying picture. Shocking how a paper would just completely lie about research that's being carried about by someone, you couldn't even call it twisting the truth in this case!

On a lighter note, I love Ben Goldacre and as soon as I have under my stairs soundproofed I shall be kidnapping him and stashing him there

Dragan

Ah well, at least the article doesn't automatically imply that because of your gender your a rapist.

Score one for the ladies.

Psychologists found that all three factors had a baring on whether men would force a woman into having sex.

They found that the skimpier the dress and the more outgoing the woman, the less likely a man was to take no for an answer.

panda100

I wonder If they'll print an aplology to the poor PHD student.


"They found that the skimpier the dress and the more outgoing the woman, the less likely a man was to take no for an answer."

So the soloution to rape is covering up and being shy,introvert and submissive??? FFS, rape has nothing to do with what women wear.
If I see a topless guy wearing only skimpy shorts does that make me want to rape him? No,Of course not.
Rape has nothing to do with benign pieces of material that we choose to wear. The sexist use of womens bodys as cheap advertising tools has completely degraded everything about our bodies. Womens breasts, legs, lips torso's, thighs are no longer her own to use to function as a human being but primarly looked upon as a sexual object.
I think a lack of respect for the rape victim is a prequsite to rape and Western Society has long lost any respect for womens bodies.


Articles like this are actually quite dangerous. Rape is massively underreported still, with many women thinking they perhaps brought the rape on themselves for wearing a short skirt or being a bit tipsy. This is madness. Society is making women feel guilty for wearing clothes they want and choose to wear.

Also, It was sad to hear today that the HSE have delayed the opening of Galways sexual assault unit until next year. Sexual assault just doesnt seem to be taken seriously in this country.

Joey the lips

What your amazed that the telegraph tells lies. Just google court and talegraph I would say you will be surprised by the amount of court cases against it and that does not include those that never bothered

johnnyskeleton

MissFlitworth wrote: »

It does however say that women who are dressed in a sexy manner or are outgoing (!!!) are more likely to be raped,

Most rapes occur domestically (i.e. between partners/former partners, parent child, siblings, neighbours etc), but of those cases involving a stranger or "date rapes" (which only account for ~5-10% of rapes), these usually occur when the complainant has become voluntarily intoxicated in public - i.e. gone out drinking. IMO it is the fact that a lot of young people get blind drunk and stagger home that makes them more likely to be raped, and just because prior to getting that drunk they were dressed sexily and/or were outgoing doesn't mean that dressing sexily or being outgoing are in themselves factors which increase the liklihood of rape.

johnnyskeleton

panda100 wrote: »

Articles like this are actually quite dangerous. Rape is massively underreported still, with many women thinking they perhaps brought the rape on themselves for wearing a short skirt or being a bit tipsy. This is madness. Society is making women feel guilty for wearing clothes they want and choose to wear.

To add a bit of balance to that comment, sexual offences also have one of the highest levels of false reporting.

Das Kitty

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

To add a bit of balance to that comment, sexual offences also have one of the highest levels of false reporting.

Well that's not exactly adding balance. That's another reason that would make judges / juries less inclined to take a rape case before them less seriously. It's also detrimental to the persual of justice. Same as this. Stating in a popular newspaper that women who dress sexily are pretty much bringing rapes upon themselves and that these findings are by "scientists" is equally dangerous.

The next step is word gets around that people will assume that a woman is lying / asking for it when she is raped, fewer women come forward about being attacked, fewer rapists are brought to justice, more rapes happen. It's a circular thing.

I'm fully aware that the telegraph are always bound in litigation (lets face it a lot of papers are), but something like this is universally damaging, it's a lot worse than libeling one person or a small group of people, IMO

shellyboo

Das Kitty wrote: »

I'm fully aware that the telegraph are always bound in litigation (lets face it a lot of papers are), but something like this is universally damaging, it's a lot worse than libeling one person or a small group of people, IMO

But it's nothing people aren't already thinking. The kind of person likely to believe such tripe isn't going to be convinced by an opposing study - and the people intelligent enough to question it already know to dismiss it out of hand.

In essence what the Telegraph is doing is reporting 'olds' - those same old stereotypes that we all "know" are true. Confirmation of such makes people feel safe and in their element. They're just catering to their readership, really.

I'm pretty disgusted at the dire journalism involved in twisting someone's research like that, but I can't say I'm shocked.

Das Kitty

shellyboo wrote: »

But it's nothing people aren't already thinking. The kind of person likely to believe such tripe isn't going to be convinced by an opposing study - and the people intelligent enough to question it already know to dismiss it out of hand.

In essence what the Telegraph is doing is reporting 'olds' - those same old stereotypes that we all "know" are true. Confirmation of such makes people feel safe and in their element. They're just catering to their readership, really.

I'm pretty disgusted at the dire journalism involved in twisting someone's research like that, but I can't say I'm shocked.

Yeah, it's pretty disgusting that this is the headline that sells their papers to their readers. People generally read papers and opinions that back up their own viewpoints so in essence they wouldn't be printing it if it didn't have an audience that believed it.

I'm not shocked either, but I am annoyed that you can outright lie in a news piece and nothing happens unless the misrepresented / libeled person does something about it legally themselves

JC 2K3

"Promiscuous Men More Likely to Rape" is an equally deplorable claim, if not moreso, because this was the title of her press release, a claim she's actually making as valid science.

And it's bullshít, she's jumping to conclusions based on a questionnaire.

Not that I support this crap. But it's a backlash against misandry, not unprovoked misogyny.

Shame on you, Sophia Shaw.

shellyboo

JC 2K3 wrote: »

"Promiscuous Men More Likely to Rape" is an equally deplorable claim, if not moreso, because this was the title of her press release, a claim she's actually making as valid science.

And it's bullshít, she's jumping to conclusions based on a questionnaire.

Not that I support this crap. But it's a backlash against misandry, not unprovoked misogyny.

Shame on you, Sophia Shaw.

That's a fair enough point. But when a problem exists with unreported rapes, and rape victims not being believed, it's particularly damaging to perpetrate the idea that women who dress provocatively are somehow "asking for it".

While it's of course equally bad to assume that just because a man is promiscuous, he could be a rapist... nobody's actually getting raped in that scenario. That's a very reductionist view, I know. In comparison to a scenario where a woman IS raped; either because she was dressed provocatively; or is too scared to come forward because she thinks it's her fault because she was dressed provocatively; or does come forward and is dismissed because she was dressed provocatively.


Basically, yes it's wrong to stereotype men. But there's still a huge job of work to be done on getting women to come forward about rape... this sort of article shouldn't be acceptable, especially when it has no basis in fact.

Das Kitty

I'd also like to say that the student who wrote the report didn't intend for it to be published in a paper and she herself says the sample size is too small and it's a preliminary report for her PHD. She never claimed anything was proven, but you have to give your PHD reports titles and that's what she went for, sensationalist, yes, vindictive, no.

johnnyskeleton

Das Kitty wrote: »

Well that's not exactly adding balance. That's another reason that would make judges / juries less inclined to take a rape case before them less seriously. It's also detrimental to the persual of justice.

I don't think it does in practice, but even if it did then is it not right that false complaints lead to some skepticism? You can't have it both ways I'm afraid, and while the low level of complaints to the gardai and the high level of attrition from that point onwards are problems, so too are the facts that there are a lot of made up complaints and also a lot of misunderstanding as to what rape actually means.

Das Kitty wrote: »

The next step is word gets around that people will assume that a woman is lying / asking for it when she is raped, fewer women come forward about being attacked, fewer rapists are brought to justice, more rapes happen. It's a circular thing.

Well the assumption that the allegations are not true is the cornerstone of criminal justice in a democratic society. It is only when the evidence proves beyond reasonable doubt that the allegations are true that there will be a conviction. People shouldn't assume that all allegations of rape are true either - it must be awful to be falsely accused of rape, acquitted and always have the allegation hanging over you. If women don't come forward about being raped it's lamentable but ultimately it is up to them to bring the complaint forward. I don't think it's circular though - 12 random people plucked off the street decide the truth of each individual case, and I doubt it has anything to do with popular perception, articles in the paper etc.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I often think there's a lot of heated debate on this topic due to limitations of the English language causing misunderstanding.

Now it seems fairly sure that rape is more an act of control rather than desire. However, I certainly wouldn't be so naive to say this accounts for all cases. However, for the purposes of explaining what I mean above lets look at this from the point of view of someone who does think a woman is "at fault" if she dresses to skimpily/gets too drunk

When someone says a woman shouldn't dress scantily/get too drunk as it could attract a rapist, they're not *blaming* the woman, the rapist is still 100% *responsible*, they're just saying the woman put herself in a dangerous situation and is in that sense "at fault"

For example, if I walk through north strand at 3am on my own drunk and I get mugged, my friends and family will tell me I'm a moron for not getting a taxi, they'd still expect the mugger if caught to face the same charges. I was "at fault" for my behavior but no one would *blame* me for the mugging.

Likewise, I don't think people who say a woman shouldn't dress skimpily actually thinks the rapists responsibility is diminished, they just think she should have been more careful.

Back to the topic, as I said, it seems rape is a crime of power. However that's not the only issue. Perhaps scantily clad girls stand out more to a rapist, perhaps he sees them as the type who looks easy and can therefore justify to himself the horrible crime he's about to commit. Even simpler, the rapist knows he has to commit the rape with a limited timeframe and in that sense the less clothes the better.

It seems to me that most women vocal on this topic won't even consider the other side of the argument because it gives a rapist a "get out clause." I don't know where they get this idea, rape is rape, and I would hope to christ no court of law would ever be more leniant on a guy who raped a girl because she dressed provocatively.

emollett

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't think it does in practice, but even if it did then is it not right that false complaints lead to some skepticism? You can't have it both ways I'm afraid, and while the low level of complaints to the gardai and the high level of attrition from that point onwards are problems, so too are the facts that there are a lot of made up complaints and also a lot of misunderstanding as to what rape actually means.

Are you sure that there are a lot of made up complaints? From what i've found, of rapes actually reported, the rate of false allegations is roughly the same as for any other crime, yet you don't seem to have people horrified at the number of people claiming fake muggings or car robberies.
A large part of the problem with statistics for false allegations is that in some districts, if a complainant withdraws their complaint, that is counted as a false allegation. In cases of rape, this can well be to do with not wanting to go through another harrowing experience. I know i would be wary of going up in court and having my sexual history dragged in front of everyone, and my experiences derided, and people presuming i just made it up as some kind of revenge plot. Plus you have to face your rapist again, and if it is an aquaintance, which in most cases it is, various pressures may cause the survivor to change their mind about prosecution unfortunately.
Also, what exactle do you mean a misunderstanding of what rape actually means? What do you think it means? Do you think there are women out there who think they have been raped, but are somehow wrong and actually without realising did give concious consent??

johnnyskeleton

emollett wrote: »

Are you sure that there are a lot of made up complaints? From what i've found, of rapes actually reported, the rate of false allegations is roughly the same as for any other crime, yet you don't seem to have people horrified at the number of people claiming fake muggings or car robberies.

Yes, AFAIR, the level of false reporting (as in found, upon investigation to be false) in sexual offences is higher than most crimes (c. 8% compared to an average of c. 5%). Fair enough people are not horrified at the number of people claiming fake muggings or car robberies, but equally people don't make as big a deal about the high level of under-reporting for such other offences. It's perhaps because sexual offences can often be a political issue.

emollett wrote: »

A large part of the problem with statistics for false allegations is that in some districts, if a complainant withdraws their complaint, that is counted as a false allegation.

That would not be particularly reliable statistics. The best statistics available are usually UK Home Office ones and the like, and such statistics usually define a false allegation as demonstrably false.

emollett wrote: »

In cases of rape, this can well be to do with not wanting to go through another harrowing experience. I know i would be wary of going up in court and having my sexual history dragged in front of everyone, and my experiences derided, and people presuming i just made it up as some kind of revenge plot. Plus you have to face your rapist again, and if it is an aquaintance, which in most cases it is, various pressures may cause the survivor to change their mind about prosecution unfortunately.

That is unfortunate and I recognise it as a problem. But it leaves us in a difficult position because some people will assume that all complaints of rape that are not pursued are true but are not pursued for one of the above reasons thus leading to the "no smoke without fire" type of reputation that can destroy someone's life. On the other hand, if we were to assume that all complaints that do not result in a conviction are false it could have similar consequences to people's reputations. In between these two extremes though it is better to err on the side of caution and say that complaints that don't go to court or don't result in a conviction are unproven allegations.

emollett wrote: »

Also, what exactle do you mean a misunderstanding of what rape actually means? What do you think it means? Do you think there are women out there who think they have been raped, but are somehow wrong and actually without realising did give concious consent??

Yes, some people think that if they get blind drunk and have consensual sex with someone they would not have if they were sober that it is rape. Others find it easy to cry rape and are unable to resile from that position so try to distort what happened to suit the facts. Unfortunately as well there are some people who have a distorted sense of reality and do not percieve things as they actually happened. Lastly, there are those who think that they can retract consent after the fact.

Macha

Can you back up your stats with links/references please, johnnyskeleton?

Riverpineapple

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I often think there's a lot of heated debate on this topic due to limitations of the English language causing misunderstanding.

Now it seems fairly sure that rape is more an act of control rather than desire. However, I certainly wouldn't be so naive to say this accounts for all cases. However, for the purposes of explaining what I mean above lets look at this from the point of view of someone who does think a woman is "at fault" if she dresses to skimpily/gets too drunk

When someone says a woman shouldn't dress scantily/get too drunk as it could attract a rapist, they're not *blaming* the woman, the rapist is still 100% *responsible*, they're just saying the woman put herself in a dangerous situation and is in that sense "at fault"

For example, if I walk through north strand at 3am on my own drunk and I get mugged, my friends and family will tell me I'm a moron for not getting a taxi, they'd still expect the mugger if caught to face the same charges. I was "at fault" for my behavior but no one would *blame* me for the mugging.

Likewise, I don't think people who say a woman shouldn't dress skimpily actually thinks the rapists responsibility is diminished, they just think she should have been more careful.

Back to the topic, as I said, it seems rape is a crime of power. However that's not the only issue. Perhaps scantily clad girls stand out more to a rapist, perhaps he sees them as the type who looks easy and can therefore justify to himself the horrible crime he's about to commit. Even simpler, the rapist knows he has to commit the rape with a limited timeframe and in that sense the less clothes the better.

It seems to me that most women vocal on this topic won't even consider the other side of the argument because it gives a rapist a "get out clause." I don't know where they get this idea, rape is rape, and I would hope to christ no court of law would ever be more leniant on a guy who raped a girl because she dressed provocatively.

Couldn't have said it better. Im still surprised I've never heard anyone else make this quite obvious point before. It makes me think humans are retarded that most can't see this simple point. I wouldn't say the problem here is the limitation of the English language but rather the limitations of most people's intelligence.

Macha

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

It seems to me that most women vocal on this topic won't even consider the other side of the argument because it gives a rapist a "get out clause." I don't know where they get this idea, rape is rape, and I would hope to christ no court of law would ever be more leniant on a guy who raped a girl because she dressed provocatively.

The problem is that this idea of "scantily clad women" is trotted out every single time rape is discussed. When you consider the fact that 2/3 of rapes are carried out by a person known to the victim, what the woman was wearing is totally irrelevant in the vast majority, if not all rape cases.

And while you say you hope no court would take it into consideration, very often the victim's past sexual history & clothing is discussed during trials, in a very thinly-veiled attempt to divert blame back onto the victim.

And of course there was the publication of the worrying report a few months ago that showed 25% of Irish people think the victim is at least partly to blame for being raped (http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0326/rape.html). So why does what the woman is wearing etc make up such a large part of the debate?

Das Kitty

taconnol wrote: »

And of course there was the publication of the worrying report a few months ago that showed 25% of Irish people think the victim is at least partly to blame for being raped (http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0326/rape.html). So why does what the woman is wearing etc make up such a large part of the debate?

One in three believed a woman was either partly or fully to blame if she wore revealing clothes.

Holy crap!

Thanks for the link taconnol, I'm learning a lot more about all sides of this debate from this thread than I imagined I would.

Mikel

taconnol wrote: »

The problem is that this idea of "scantily clad women" is trotted out every single time rape is discussed. When you consider the fact that 2/3 of rapes are carried out by a person known to the victim, what the woman was wearing is totally irrelevant in the vast majority, if not all rape cases.

And while you say you hope no court would take it into consideration, very often the victim's past sexual history & clothing is discussed during trials, in a very thinly-veiled attempt to divert blame back onto the victim.

And of course there was the publication of the worrying report a few months ago that showed 25% of Irish people think the victim is at least partly to blame for being raped (http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0326/rape.html). So why does what the woman is wearing etc make up such a large part of the debate?

Jesus wept, how many times does that survey have to be trotted out?
Claiming that 25% of people think the victim is 'partly to blame' is dishonest and disingenuous.
You can get any answer you want in a survey provided you ask the right question.

If you ask people whether someone has to take responsibility for where they park their car, is that the same thing as 'blaming' them if it gets stolen?

If you ask people whether women should take personal responsibility for their safety, should be careful about staggering home drunk, wouldn't everyone say yes?
Is that the same thing as 'blaming' a woman for being raped?
Of course not.

Have Red C ever published the questionnaire?
Of course not, because the point is not finding out the truth, it's to be sensationalist.

I posted a reply on this issue a few months back with an article about this survey, analyses it pretty well (the article)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55806547&postcount=320
The important bit is

Wednesday's Irish Examiner editorial, "We must stop blaming the victims", referred to "neanderthal beliefs", pretty much anticipating the subsequent consensus of media discussions about what the survey appeared to indicate.
But is this reasonable? Does the word "blame" in this context carry the same meaning as "responsibility"? The pollsters, not the respondents, chose the language, and the language of the rape issue is loaded and ideologically booby-trapped.
If you ask someone whether a person who ventures into a dangerous situation bears some responsibility if something bad befalls them, can you call this blaming the victim? Could such a view not simply reflect a belief that people should not take unnecessary risks?
If the Examiner poll had asked respondents whether they believed that the culpability of an assailant is reduced by the actions, dress or sexual history of a victim, I think it is reasonable to anticipate that close to 100 per cent would have vehemently rejected such a notion.

But it doesn't matter does it?
Because none of this tallies with the notion that everyone thinks that women are 'asking for it'.

There's a received wisdom that has to be reinforced and is impervious to any actual evidence to the contrary.
Everyone thinks a woman is to blame for being raped......
Women get paid 25% less than men......
1 in 4 (or 5) women experience domestic violence...

The problem is that this idea of "scantily clad women" is trotted out every single time rape is discussed.

Yes that is a problem, but who trots it out?
It always seems to be a woman who brings that out, projecting what she would like to imagine other people are thinking.
Read any thread here on the subject...
'Oh, that's typical, I suppose you think she was asking for it'

Right, because they're the only two possible positions.
Either you have no personal responsibility for your own safety or you're to blame for being raped.

Google that survey and you'll see why it was published.
The number of organisations and pressure groups that lifted the number and used it in a press release is extraordinary.

The problem is that exaggerating an apparent opinion like that backfires because people immediately shake their heads and dismiss it, and you lose any chance of solving or at least reducing the real problem that exists.

But as long as you have groups (especially women's groups) who seek to distort and exaggerate to grab headlines, that's what you'll get.
Lots of outrage, zero progress.

Piste

If someone parks a car in a dodgy area with the keys in the ignition and the doors wide open then it's not their fault if it gets robbed, but they should have been more responsable to ensure it didn't get robbed. Similarly if a wmen walks down a dark alley alone in the middle of the night with her tits hanging out it's not her fault if she gets raped but she should have been more responsable to ensure it didn't happen.

Macha

Mikel wrote: »

Jesus wept, how many times does that survey have to be trotted out? Claiming that 25% of people think the victim is 'partly to blame' is dishonest and disingenuous. You can get any answer you want in a survey provided you ask the right question.

If you want to attack the methodology of the study, please do so. I can't see any sort of decent argument in the above paragraph. It is perfectly acceptable sociological research methodology to extrapolate out the findings to a certain population, as long as the sample was drawn correctly and randomly from within that population. I'd like to see you argue against this.

Mikel wrote: »

If you ask people whether women should take personal responsibility for their safety, should be careful about staggering home drunk, wouldn't everyone say yes? Is that the same thing as 'blaming' a woman for being raped?
Of course not.

Er...do you understand the concept of responsibility and how it is connected to blame? Full marks for trying to separate out the two so distinctly (and conveniently).

Mikel wrote: »

But it doesn't matter does it?
Because none of this tallies with the notion that everyone thinks that women are 'asking for it'.

Now who's throwing out "stats" and being sensationalist? What utter nonsense. Every single discussion I have ever had/heard/seen either online, in newspapers or in person, this has come up. And it hasn't always been a woman that brought it up.

Mikel wrote: »

There's a received wisdom that has to be reinforced and is impervious to any actual evidence to the contrary.

I'm afraid you have done little in the way of providing any "actual evidence" yourself, either in support of your arguments or in successfully arguing why we should not accept evidence to the contrary, including the above study.

My irritatation at the attitudes expressed in the survey is that in many, many cases, these issues (ie clothing, dark alley, intoxication level etc) are not factors at all. But the myth endures that if people just dress modestly, don't walk down dark alleys and stay sober, they will be going a long way in saving themselves from a possible rape. This is not reality.

In this way, people are receiving false signals and information about how to protect themselves. How do you protect yourself if it's someone you know, in your own home and the person is just simply stronger than you? I don't know but wearing a longer skirt is not really going to save you.

Galvasean

taconnol wrote: »

If you want to attack the methodology of the study, please do so. I can't see any sort of decent argument in the above paragraph. It is perfectly acceptable sociological research methodology to extrapolate out the findings to a certain population, as long as the sample was drawn correctly and randomly from within that population. I'd like to see you argue against this.

I'm pretty sure he was arguing that the phrasing of questions in the survey was misleading. Such practice is (unfortunately) very common.

Macha

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm pretty sure he was arguing that the phrasing of questions in the survey was misleading. Such practice is (unfortunately) very common.

That was one part of his argument, one that he hasn't explained clearly, apart from trying to argue that responsibility and blame are mutually exclusive. He also hasn't stated the wording of the question and then set out what is wrong with it clearly. This would be a good starting point. As it happens, the questions in the survey used the words "totally, partially or not responsible at all", as the options in the different scenarios.

The paragraph that you quoted above from me, is in response to his complaint about the survey being extrapolated out to the Irish population.

Look, there may be many problems with this study. I haven't seen the details of it, other than one question that was asked. I personally didn't like the gendering of the question - it could have worked equally well (or badly) with gender-neutral phrasing.

Edit: Mikel, I've looked around for some more info on the study and it does seem to be seriously flawed so I take your point that the results should be viewed with some skepticism. I'm afraid I'm guilty of accepting it at face value because it suited my argument! Oh dear..

JC 2K3

The problem with stats on sensitive/contraversial issues, is that surveys to collect them are almost always performed by groups with an agenda, and stats by their nature are very easy to twist to suit and side of the argument.

The_Minister

I recall one girl saying to me (as we walked along a very dark path funnily enough:p) that she didn't wear skimpy clothes because she didn't want to raped. She still dressed sexy - jeans and a close-fitting top - but she felt that it would be harder for someone to rape her if she wore solid clothes like that, as opposed to very thin, loose clothes that could be removed easily.

I thought it made alot of sense. From a practical point of view 'provocative' clothes provide easy access.

The_Minister

Mikel wrote: »

You can get any answer you want in a survey provided you ask the right question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo

Love that show

Macha

The_Minister wrote: »

From a practical point of view 'provocative' clothes provide easy access.

Would you believe this rational was used in a court ruling in Italy whereby victims could not be as such if they were wearing jeans at the time of the crime because jeans are hard to take off and so the victim would have had to "helped" the rapist?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/277263.stm

How f*ked up is that? The ruling was only repealed a decade later, in 2008.

Mikel

taconnol wrote: »

If you want to attack the methodology of the study, please do so. I can't see any sort of decent argument in the above paragraph. It is perfectly acceptable sociological research methodology to extrapolate out the findings to a certain population, as long as the sample was drawn correctly and randomly from within that population. I'd like to see you argue against this.

Extrapolation is not a problem once your methodology is sound.
From what I can see though the methodology is rarely publicised, maybe that's the fault of the researcher or the fault of the newspaper, I don't know.
These 'studies' rarely seem to be publicly available, see for eg the other widely quoted one on domestic violence, the name escapes me at the moment.

taconnol wrote:

Er...do you understand the concept of responsibility and how it is connected to blame? Full marks for trying to separate out the two so distinctly (and conveniently).

But they are separate and distinct, but when used interchangeably the results can be dubious.

taconnol wrote:

I'm afraid you have done little in the way of providing any "actual evidence" yourself, either in support of your arguments or in successfully arguing why we should not accept evidence to the contrary, including the above study.

But I'm not advancing any hypothesis, I'm questioning someone else's, so the burden of proof is theirs.

taconnol wrote:

My irritatation at the attitudes expressed in the survey is that in many, many cases, these issues (ie clothing, dark alley, intoxication level etc) are not factors at all. But the myth endures that if people just dress modestly, don't walk down dark alleys and stay sober, they will be going a long way in saving themselves from a possible rape. This is not reality

I'm not so sure, some rape must be opportunistic, certainly in the case of drunkenness.

taconnol wrote:

In this way, people are receiving false signals and information about how to protect themselves. How do you protect yourself if it's someone you know, in your own home and the person is just simply stronger than you? I don't know but wearing a longer skirt is not really going to save you

Wouldn't apply here, but doesn't that depend on what percentage of offences are in each category, for want of a better word.

taconnol wrote:

That was one part of his argument, one that he hasn't explained clearly, apart from trying to argue that responsibility and blame are mutually exclusive. He also hasn't stated the wording of the question and then set out what is wrong with it clearly. This would be a good starting point. As it happens, the questions in the survey used the words "totally, partially or not responsible at all", as the options in the different scenarios.

I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, just not synonymous.
I'd like to see the questions but like I say above, they never seem to publish them.

taconnol wrote:

Edit: Mikel, I've looked around for some more info on the study and it does seem to be seriously flawed so I take your point that the results should be viewed with some skepticism. I'm afraid I'm guilty of accepting it at face value because it suited my argument! Oh dear..

No worries, there's a quote from Bertrand Russell which springs to mind :pac:

JC 2K3 wrote:

The problem with stats on sensitive/contraversial issues, is that surveys to collect them are almost always performed by groups with an agenda, and stats by their nature are very easy to twist to suit and side of the argument.

This is very important and often overlooked, these surveys aren't done in a vacuum. A pressure group with an obvious agenda commissions a firm to do the study. Either explicitly or implicitly there could be pressure to 'get the right result'.
If you don't like the answers just don't publish it and take your business elsewhere.
This often seems to come up while debating these kinds of issues.
I think it's a major weakness of groups agitating on these kinds of issues that they are obsessed with producing a 'big number'.
Maybe it's inherent in these organisations, or maybe it's what they think they have to do to get coverage, but I think it's completely wrong headed.

Any reasonable person I think would ask where the number came from and so far I've yet to see anyone publish details that would allow you to see this.

taconnol wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/277263.stm
How f*ked up is that? The ruling was only repealed a decade later, in 2008.

Very fcuked up indeed.
I wouldn't always take the judiciary as the indicator of public opinion.
Often in fact they are so out of touch that an appalling verdict precipitates such outrage that the law is changed, for eg it only recently became illegal in the UK (probably here too) for a man to rape his wife.

Interesting too that the origin of the 'asking for it' entering public consciousness was a verdict in the UK back in the eighties that a woman brought it on herself by wearing a mini skirt.

And The_Minister, damn you to hell! I was going to post that!
That was exactly the scene I was thinking of.
Any time on youtube watching that show is time well spent!

Macha

Mikel wrote: »

No worries, there's a quote from Bertrand Russell which springs to mind :pac:

Well feck yeh anyway. Damn your good memory :pac:

JC 2K3

:pac:

Galvasean

taconnol wrote: »

Edit: Mikel, I've looked around for some more info on the study and it does seem to be seriously flawed so I take your point that the results should be viewed with some skepticism. I'm afraid I'm guilty of accepting it at face value because it suited my argument! Oh dear..

Personally I don't have much faith in any survey results until I see the actual phrasing of the questions and check out the demograph. I've seen so many surveys (especially in relation to science and politics) that were purposely phrased misleadingly in order to get the aswer the researchers wanted.

The_Minister wrote: »

I recall one girl saying to me (as we walked along a very dark path funnily enough:p) that she didn't wear skimpy clothes because she didn't want to raped. She still dressed sexy - jeans and a close-fitting top - but she felt that it would be harder for someone to rape her if she wore solid clothes like that, as opposed to very thin, loose clothes that could be removed easily.

I thought it made alot of sense. From a practical point of view 'provocative' clothes provide easy access.

That seems like good logic.

taconnol wrote: »

Would you believe this rational was used in a court ruling in Italy whereby victims could not be as such if they were wearing jeans at the time of the crime because jeans are hard to take off and so the victim would have had to "helped" the rapist?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/277263.stm

How f*ked up is that? The ruling was only repealed a decade later, in 2008.

Just shows how out of touch with reality people in power can be.

I think there is very little evidence to suggest that dressing provocatively is a big factor on who gets raped and who doesn't. However, it may be in rare cases where it was more of an opportunistic thing (from the 'easy access' POV). That said I would never indicate that someone dressing in a provocative manner 'had it coming to them'. All thinking likethat does is take responsibility away from teh real culprits, which is complete nonsense.

Macha

Galvasean wrote: »

That seems like good logic.

If a rapist has a gun, or a knife or a strong fist, it doesn't matter how much clothes you're wearing.

Galvasean wrote: »

Just shows how out of touch with reality people in power can be.

Really (and unfortunatele) I think it's part of a wider attitude towards women in Italy that is very, very f**ked up.

Also, this piece of research came out today from the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre: Now the majority (well, 51%) of reported rapes to them are committed by a person who is a stranger to the victim:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0715/breaking39.html

Better? Worse? I don't know but it's really scary.

Galvasean

taconnol wrote: »

If a rapist has a gun, or a knife or a strong fist, it doesn't matter how much clothes you're wearing.

Of course. I'm just saying in certain situations small things can make all the difference.

taconnel wrote:

Also, this piece of research came out today from the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre: Now the majority (well, 51%) of reported rapes to them are committed by a person who is a stranger to the victim:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0715/breaking39.html

Better? Worse? I don't know but it's really scary.

I think the fact that rape appears to be on the increase is the alarming bit. With the (sudden drastic) shift from the majority being known to their victim to complete strangers, it could mean that opportunistic rapists are on the increase. That to me is quite scary. The idea that there are people out there literally prowling around looking for someone to rape.

Mikel

taconnol wrote: »

Also, this piece of research came out today from the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre: Now the majority (well, 51%) of reported rapes to them are committed by a person who is a stranger to the victim:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0715/breaking39.html

Better? Worse? I don't know but it's really scary.

I've usually no problem with numbers but that report is very confusing, they seem to on the one hand be saying the offence by a stranger is becoming more common percentage wise, but that reporting wise the known assailant is more common.
I think.
The message in the past always seemed to be the attacker being known to the victim.
Does that mean the offence has changed or reporting of it has changed, probably doesn't matter.

If you were clutching at straws, maybe the known assailant would be more likely to be an habitual attacker, but that's a pretty weak consolation to take.

It's actually surprising that's there's as many calls about childhood abuse, about 4,500, that's pretty depressing

Macha

Galvasean wrote: »

Of course. I'm just saying in certain situations small things can make all the difference.

True, especially if as you call them opportunistic rapists are on the increase.

Mikel wrote: »

I've usually no problem with numbers but that report is very confusing, they seem to on the one hand be saying the offence by a stranger is becoming more common percentage wise, but that reporting wise the known assailant is more common.

Yes - it looks like the article was written by someone going through the report and pulling out stats, without tying them in together properly.

Mikel wrote: »

The message in the past always seemed to be the attacker being known to the victim. Does that mean the offence has changed or reporting of it has changed, probably doesn't matter.

I think they're saying that more people are coming forward about rapes by known assailants but that even with this trend, the (slight) majority of reported cases are by stranger.

Mikel wrote: »

It's actually surprising that's there's as many calls about childhood abuse, about 4,500, that's pretty depressing

Maybe as a result of the Ryan report?

rumour

shellyboo wrote: »

Basically, yes it's wrong to stereotype men. But there's still a huge job of work to be done on getting women to come forward about rape... .

Interesting topic, it would now appear that any means are justifiable to maintain this religious view. The definition of rape has changed, the incidence of rape is now generally accepted by an unverifiable means of quantifying the problem (Reported rapes to agencies, non-conviction being presented as a fault of the legal system) This is so much so the case that in the UK they now have quota's to achieve. Cases before court must equal 'x' per annum.
Then curiously creeping up behind all of this with little or no media attention is the increasing number of men being let out of prison when they have been proved innocent by new evidence and the number of women who have admitted to falsifying their statements ruining the mans life entirely.

There is a serious question to be answered if the measures in place to deliver upon your entirely valid concern are correct.

What if simply there are not as many rapes as we fear?

rumour

Galvasean wrote: »

I think the fact that rape appears to be on the increase is the alarming bit.

I would treat these figures with a pinch of salt. You have to ask a few questions,

• this is the centre that had a publicity campaign implying your father is a potential rapist (creating fear, a secure source of political pressure hence funds).
• secondly when have they ever reported a reduction? Consider if it was always on the increase. Given that men and women are on the planet for thousands of years and rapists have always existed, logically if you accept that an increase is the only option every man on the planet by now is a rapist. The rape crisis centre has been in existence for 30-40 years something must be wrong if it is always going up. Can anyone honestly say, believe that every man they know is a rapist? Reduction in rape = reduced funding.
• Finally this country is about to face serious cutbacks and the rape crisis centre is along with everyone else in the firing line. As with all other publically funded bodies they are laying out their stall in the media as to why they should be an exception. What better way than to court public opinion by announcing rapes are on the increase. Agitating fear again.

These people are protecting their priviliged livelihoods first and service to women in need second, no different than any other state agency as can be seen of late. Therefore I would not allow your levels of concen to be hightened by this particular set of figures.