How Rape Statistics are Distorted and Inflated

19/8/01

Have You Been Raped Recently?

No?

Well, What A Surprise!

Think very carefully about the following question.

1. Has anyone, male or female, ever put fingers or objects in your vagina or anus against your will, OR by using force OR threats?

(Please take especial note of, and understand, the implication of the word 'or' in the above paragraph.)

Does the following count as a Yes, one wonders?

"You'll really enjoy it Mary."

"No, Patrick. Don't." Pant. "Aaaah! No, you mustn't." Pant. Sigh. " Oh. Oh. Not so hard." Squeal. "Ow! Do it gently. Oh yes, that's better."

Etc.

What happened after the word "Don't", is counted as 'rape' in the rape statistics.

Patrick acted against Mary's will.

Mary could even be standing in a courtroom claiming quite accurately that she told Patrick not to do whatever he did.

"I said, DON'T," she would claim.

And she would be telling the truth.

But the main point here is this ... Mary could truthfully answer Yes to Question 1.

she becomes part of the rape statistics - even though she LOVED what actually happened.

As such, she becomes part of the rape statistics - even though she LOVED what actually happened.

Question 1. was used in the most recent MAJOR American survey of sex-assaults, and the fraudulent figures derived from it were the ones presented to the government and to the media.

2. Has anyone, male or female, ever ATTEMPTED (my emphasis) to make you have vaginal, oral, or anal sex against your will but intercourse or penetration did NOT (my emphasis) occur?

Once again, Mary could truthfully answer, Yes.

Much of a young male adult's life consists in persuading his partner to go 'one step further', in the sexual sense.

There is always 'one step further'!

According to Question 2, therefore, virtually every young male is a serial rapist, for he has often 'attempted' to overcome that 'initial' resistance to sexual 'penetration'.

And so it is that the official US 'rape' figures come MOSTLY from affirmative answers to such ridiculous questions as 1. and 2. above.

Nearly all of us have both raped and been raped according to these stupid questions.

Goodness me. What man alive has not 'attempted' (unsuccessfully, remember) to have sex with someone who, at that particular moment, was somewhat unwilling!??

And there will be many women who will answer the above questions in a manner which erroneously suggests that they have been assaulted when, in fact, they are just trying to be extremely accurate in interpreting those questions.

"Hmm. Yes. I did actually say, 'No', to begin with, didn't I?"

And this percentage of women, even if small, will massively inflate the rape figures; which, themselves, are small.

Imagine, for the moment, that 1 out of every 1000 women who answered these questions had indeed been raped; i.e. 0.1% of these women.

Now, what if just 5% of all the women who were surveyed(i.e. 50 of them) thought; "Well, I did resist at first, didn't I? So I had better answer YES to the questions."

the rape figures would be inflated to be 50 times greater than the actual incidence of rape.

Well, in this case, the rape figures would be inflated to be 50 times greater than the actual incidence of rape.

Only one woman (out of the 1000) was actually raped, but 50 women state that, at some stage, they said, "No."

And if 1 in 5000 of the women surveyed had genuinely been raped, but 10% of all the women had answered Yes (simply to be 'accurate' when answering the question) then the rape figures would be inflated by a factor of 500!

1 out of the 5,000 women was raped - but the 'official' figures will say that 500 were raped.

As such, one can see how even slight variations in the questions, or in the interpretation of them, can lead to huge fluctuations in the figures.

And, needless to say, this trick is used by 'researchers' working for the abuse industry in all sorts of areas where they use surveys.

Basically, what they do is this.

They 'investigate' some inappropriate behaviour (such as domestic violence, sex assault, rape etc etc) and define it in such a way that it sounds 'bad', and 'very serious' - and rare; so that enough people are 'appalled'.

Then they issue a questionnaire that is loaded in some major ways so that the results that are found are the results that are wanted.

And one trick is to make at least one of the questions slightly ambiguous. Only some 5% of the respondents then need to be caught out by this ambiguity, and the figures for the inappropriate behaviour will soar; 30, 50, 100, 200 times greater than is the case in reality.

And if the sample of the women questioned have been politicised by feminists in any way (e.g. particularly as typically found in many colleges and universities) then the rape figures can easily be inflated by 100 as young women falsify their responses in order to 'help the Sisterhood'.

No wonder Americans think that they have such a high rape problem when even government-appointed officials lie so blatantly through their phony research.

But this happens all over the feminist world.

If you want to see how Americans fiddle the figures to demonise men and get lots of funding on the basis of such fraudulent procedures take a look here (20 min) at the recent report published by the National Institute of Justice (sic).

Questions 1. and 2. can be found near the bottom of the piece.

And here in the Sacremento Bee you will find one of the many articles concerning the way in which American universities can get millions of dollars by inflating their sex-assault figures. In this particular case, there was, apparently, one rape on campus between 1995 and 1998. But the university fills out a report claiming that there are 700 rapes or attempted rapes EVERY YEAR!

Now, you might think that all this is some kind of aberration, a freak occurrence, a rare event, an uncommon deception.

But you would be so wrong.

turning just one incident of abuse into 100 is almost par for the course

Read some more of this website, and you will see that turning just one incident of abuse into 100 is almost par for the course when it comes to the figures emanating from government-funded groups.

The whole abuse industry lives almost solely on a tissue of lies - and it is mostly done at the expense of all men; not only in the way in which they are constantly portrayed and demonised, but also in the corrupt laws and procedures that are continually being created and used against them as a result of these lies.

Look at questions 1. and 2. again. They are PURPOSELY designed to inflate the rape figures - and they do so enormously.

Another One Caught The former head of anti-violence efforts at the University of California, Davis, pleaded no contest Thursday to two felony charges of embezzlement and falsifying accounts.

Beeman, 53, has been the subject of campus probes for allegedly inflating crime statistics on federal grant applications and misappropriating money for personal uses.

Lying, cheating and inflating all the statistics is how they make their living.

And, for obvious reasons, the very best of these cheats make it to the top.

If, perchance, you are in the mood for reading one of my rants, I recommend the following, ...