Re: Date Rape Research Controversy

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ralph DuBose) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kate Orman) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

> > > > I've just updated my online essay, "The Date Rape Research 
> > > > Controversy". Feedback is very welcome. It's here:
> > > > 
> > > > http://katesfeminist.info/rape/controversy/

>    The basic problem with Koss's work remains regardless of the fact
> that it got past peer review in the journals to which it was submited.
> The problem is that nowadays even the legal definition of rape, which
> was relied upon as a sort of gold standard, is based on quite a lot of
> subjective criteria, especially in regard to such things as a verbal
> threat and issues of impairment (unable to give consent). Perhaps the
> reason that so many "victims" of these rapes did not see what happened
> as rape and went on to continue the relationship was that, as a matter
> of common sense and decency, it did not feel like rape to them until
> they were told that what happened could have met the "legal"
> definition of rape if enough could be made of the issues of coercion
> and impairment.

Let me quote three facts from the essay which make this unlikely to be the truth.

First of all:

"So let's listen: what did the raped women think? 90% said that it was 
rape; or that it was a crime, but they didn't know it qualified as a 
rape, perhaps because it was committed by a boyfriend or while on a 
date; or that it was a sexual assault, but they didn't know it was 
illegal."

73% of the rape victims didn't answer "yes" when they were asked if 
they'd been raped. But only 10% of them didn't think it was some sort 
of crime. That doesn't fit with what you're saying.

Secondly:

"If the women in Koss' survey thought they were having consensual sex, 
why did a majority of them try to stop it from happening? 84% of the 
rape victims reported trying to reason with their attacker, and 70% 
physically struggled. In the NIJ study, 65% of the rape victims tried 
to protect themselves, including using physical force against the attacker."

In the NIJ study, about half of the rape victims said they didn't 
consider what happened to be a rape - even the ones who tried to fight 
off their attacker! That doesn't fit with what you're saying either.

>    Also, if a group of college men were asked if they had ever gotten
> drunk and been fondled by a woman that they wished not to be touched
> by, what do you think the numbers would be? Quite high I bet. Should
> you patiently explain to all of them that they were victims of sexual
> assault and next time should file charges?

The women in Koss' survey were not "fondled"; they were raped, or 
escaped attempted rape - penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth, 
with penis or foreign objects. If your hypothetical college men had 
penises inserted into their mouths, or bottles into their anuses, 
would you still suggest it's a waste of time to tell them they've been 
sexually assaulted? And why *shouldn't* men be told what the law is in 
their state or country when it comes to sexual assault, even when it's 
not completed rape? Is it because men supposedly *always* want sex, 
so violating them is supposedly trivial?

>   I think that it is a mistake to try to seperate the two goals.
> Nothing will trivialize the whole question in the minds of men faster
> than an official indifference to the problem of false accusation.

No doubt, but since we have lots of news items being posted to this 
newsgroup about women being charged for the crime of falsely reporting 
rape, I see no evidence of "official indifference". Instead, I see a myth 
- that false accusations are a widespread problem damaging lots and lots 
of men. There's no evidence that's true - but there's plenty of evidence 
that *rape* is a widespread problem affecting lots and lots of women - 
and men, too.

[...]

Yours,
- Kate Orman