So I, as a man, am now supposedly responsible for another man raping someone because I didn't assume he was a monster?
Yet expecting a woman (and applies to men just the same) to do her best to keep herself safe is too much to ask apparently...
It's basically the same mindset as HeForShe. Ask men to become white knights to defend women. Personally, as someone who sees women as equal and has a mindset that everyone should be treated equally, I refuse to bend at the knee and be dubbed.
Hey, so, why don't you just stay in your house all the time so you don't get burgled OR mugged? Why don't you wear only Primark clothes so people don't think you're rich? Why don't you avoid anything busier than a B road, because cars are dangerous? Why don't you stay off the internet, because that'll protect you from identity theft? Why don't you eat your steak with your hands and teeth, because you could cut yourself on that knife?
Saying people should "just" do X to keep themselves safe is stupid. There are always good reasons to do X, and often there's no real proof that not doing X would keep you any safer anyway. And, yeah, it's disproportionately women who are expected to make massive, massive compromises in their life "to keep themselves safe".
You're taking it to an extreme. Freedom comes with risk. Being completely oblivious to danger and assuming no responsibility for your own safety and actions whatsoever makes you an easy target for any criminal who wants to take advantage of such a situation but barricading yourself in your house and bricking up the windows and doors robs you of life.
Humans are a sexually dimorphic species which means that women are generally weaker, smaller and more vulnerable than men. Women have on average 40-60% of upper body strength and 70-75% of lower body strength of a man. An adult male is on average 4% taller and 8% heavier than a adult female. Male running times in athletics are on average 11% faster than women's times. That is a natural fact and there is absolutely nothing you can do about sexual dimorphism. What you can do something about is minimise your risk of becoming a victim of crime.
It's basically the same mindset as HeForShe. Ask men to become white knights to defend women. Personally, as someone who sees women as equal and has a mindset that everyone should be treated equally, I refuse to bend at the knee and be dubbed.
<snip>.
I knew someone would say this - why can you not see it as a means of helping other human beings? If you could make a difference, why not? One of the reasons these sorts of schemes are useful is that they work within groups (in this case, groups of males, like sports teams or groups who socialise together).
It's basically the same mindset as HeForShe. Ask men to become white knights to defend women. Personally, as someone who sees women as equal and has a mindset that everyone should be treated equally, I refuse to bend at the knee and be dubbed.
Humans are a sexually dimorphic species which means that women are generally weaker, smaller and more vulnerable than men. Women have on average 40-60% of upper body strength and 70-75% of lower body strength of a man. An adult male is on average 4% taller and 8% heavier than a adult female. Male running times in athletics are on average 11% faster than women's times. That is a natural fact and there is absolutely nothing you can do about sexual dimorphism. What you can do something about is minimise your risk of becoming a victim of crime.
Which bit of the BIB do you think is true ? Yes it's a fact men are physically stronger and that is why it is usually women who are raped. You can see women as equal in many things, but not in the issue of rape.
I'm not arguing that men should be white knights for women, but is it too much to ask for help in changing the culture that we all live in ? It certainly doesn't seem too much to ask women not to get drunk or dress in a short skirt.
I am reading a lot of anger from men in this thread. Anger against any suggestion that they could assist in changing things for the better. I don't know why this is
Alcohol is used as a weapon of rape. Men beat women up after drinking alcohol. By continuing to allow alcohol to be legal, the government is endangering the safety of women. Alcohol should be banned.
You could back people up on threads like this, for one thing. I mean, I know it sounds tiny, but any support for victims rather than rapists, and support for the idea of guys calling out their own, is valuable. Assuming you don't have personal experience of being raped or assaulted or whatever, every time you stand up to someone saying horrible things is a time you've probably saved a victim of assault feeling like they have to do it, and it's much more upsetting for them. It also slowly but surely changes society, makes a difference to what's seen as acceptable behaviour.
(Also, though, yay for what you have done )
I have been mugged and beaten up more than once.
Though as said they like to pick a victim as I'm 5'4 and never weighed more than 8 and a half stone they know they stand a better chance mugging/beating me up than a bigger man
Though due to the fact my Dad was alcholic and abusive and I was bullied at school and often got beat up if there is one thing I'm good at it's taking a beating.
Alcohol is used as a weapon of rape. Men beat women up after drinking alcohol. By continuing to allow alcohol to be legal, the government is endangering the safety of women. Alcohol should be banned.
Hey, so, why don't you just stay in your house all the time so you don't get burgled OR mugged? Why don't you wear only Primark clothes so people don't think you're rich? Why don't you avoid anything busier than a B road, because cars are dangerous? Why don't you stay off the internet, because that'll protect you from identity theft? Why don't you eat your steak with your hands and teeth, because you could cut yourself on that knife?
Saying people should "just" do X to keep themselves safe is stupid. There are always good reasons to do X, and often there's no real proof that not doing X would keep you any safer anyway. And, yeah, it's disproportionately women who are expected to make massive, massive compromises in their life "to keep themselves safe".
Oh FFS, why the over-reaction?
I was not suggesting that you stay at home all of the time to prevent burglary, just that you take precautions like making sure your windows are all shut before you go out and not leaving your keys in a place that they can be fished.
In this scenario, a comparison would be not getting so drunk you are not in control, not walking alone, avoiding alleyways where possible.
Which bit of the BIB do you think is true ? Yes it's a fact men are physically stronger and that is why it is usually women who are raped. You can see women as equal in many things, but not in the issue of rape.
I'm not arguing that men should be white knights for women, but is it too much to ask for help in changing the culture that we all live in ? It certainly doesn't seem too much to ask women not to get drunk or dress in a short skirt.
I am reading a lot of anger from men in this thread. Anger against any suggestion that they could assist in changing things for the better. I don't know why this is
Probably because the claims of a "rape culture", the 1 in 5 claim which was made in the USA and has made its way into the claims made by advocacy groups and campaigners in the United Kingdom is simply not true and has been discredited. I'll let scholar and feminist Christina Hoff Sommers explain:
The true figures as have just been released in the last day or so by the Office of National Statistics is 1 in 1000 for sexual offences and rape is now at 0.5 per 1000, a slight rise on the last figures I quoted up to 2014. That still is 0.5 too many but it isn't anywhere near the 1 in 5 people claim. We do victims no good whatsoever in using false claims and misleading statistics.
I simply refuse to support people advocating for "listen and believe", exaggerated claims with no basis in logic or reality or the unequal treatment through positive or negative discrimination of either gender.
You cannot compare drink driving with rape. A drink driver chooses to get behind the wheel, a woman does not choose to be raped. No matter how drunk she is, she never chooses to be raped.
Choosing to walk home when it's dark is not choosing to be rape. Rape is not a 'consequence' of being drunk. Going out for a quick cig in the beer garden isn't putting yourself in danger.
The fault lies firmly with the offender.
The fault lies firmly with the offender yes, but the victim may be more at risk by virtue of being drunk or incapacitated, and that is the same for someone who might get mugged, physically attacked etc. Lets say someone is very drunk when coming home, he steps out into the road and is hit by a car. The car driver is to blame (lets say) but the victim was more at risk because their wits were not about them.
Its not exactly the same as rape but the bottom line is, if you get drunk when out in the community you are more at risk to something happening to you.
The fault lies firmly with the offender yes, but the victim may be more at risk by virtue of being drunk or incapacitated, and that is the same for someone who might get mugged, physically attacked etc. Lets say someone is very drunk when coming home, he steps out into the road and is hit by a car. The car driver is to blame (lets say) but the victim was more at risk because their wits were not about them.
Its not exactly the same as rape but the bottom line is, if you get drunk when out in the community you are more at risk to something happening to you.
Exactly a predator will always pick prey that is vulnerable.
If you leave your front door unlocked and wide open, are you partially responsible for being robbed? The criminal is the robber obviously, but you made it easy for them. Whilst we live in a messed up world, we all have to take some responsibility to keep ourselves, our family, and our possessions safe. That is an unfortunate reality.
I think its more accurate to say that the home owner is not 'responsible' for being robbed but the house being unlocked and open made it easier for the house to be robbed and therefore not locking it was a contributory factor in why that particular house was taken advantage of.
A rapist is like any criminal, they will target an item or person that they think they have some success with, a person who looks unsteady on their feet, not really able to make their usual decision, or a car which is easy to steal, that open window leading to a quick getaway with someone's telly etc etc
Every single situation (apart from something ridiculous like a tree falling on someone) has several different contributory factors to it.
Alcohol is used as a weapon of rape. Men beat women up after drinking alcohol. By continuing to allow alcohol to be legal, the government is endangering the safety of women. Alcohol should be banned.
And men beat other men up
Women beat men up
Women beat women up
Sometimes people are just utter d!ckheads, their gender is irrelevant.
Probably because the claims of a "rape culture", the 1 in 5 claim which was made in the USA and has made its way into the claims made by advocacy groups and campaigners in the United Kingdom is simply not true and has been discredited. I'll let scholar and feminist Christina Hoff Sommers explain:
The true figures as have just been released in the last day or so by the Office of National Statistics is 1 in 1000 for sexual offences and rape is now at 0.5 per 1000, a slight rise on the last figures I quoted up to 2014. That still is 0.5 too many but it isn't anywhere near the 1 in 5 people claim. We do victims no good whatsoever in using false claims and misleading statistics.
I simply refuse to support people advocating for "listen and believe", exaggerated claims with no basis in logic or reality or the unequal treatment through positive or negative discrimination of either gender.
I wasn't going to bother with this thread but have just dipped in as it's still going, and when I saw such a gross misrepresentation of the facts as in your post, I just had to respond.
Your stats are for one year only. The rate of sexual offences against females in England and Wales during their lifetime (well ages 16 to 59) based on UK Government statistics is indeed about one in five and that is what the advocacy groups correctly report. This is likely to understate the true figure because a) females over 59 were not asked and b) not all those asked were in fact 59 years old or thereabouts - there is still plenty of time for the younger ones in the group who reported 'no offences' to be sexually assaulted, thus raising the overall 'lifetime' figure. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/an-overview-of-sexual-offending-in-england-and-wales
"Around one in twenty females (aged 16 to 59) reported being a victim of a most serious sexual offence since the age of 16. Extending this to include other sexual offences such as sexual threats, unwanted touching or indecent exposure, this increased to one in five females reporting being a victim since the age of 16."
Equally shocking is the following paragraph:
"Females who had reported being victims of the most serious sexual offences in the last year were asked, regarding the most recent incident, whether or not they had reported the incident to the police. Only 15 per cent of victims of such offences said that they had done so."
Finally, women do seem to suffer disproportionately to men:
"2.5 per cent of females and 0.4 per cent of males said that they had been a victim of a sexual offence (including attempts) in the previous 12 months. "
If you don't understand Government statistics and how to present them, it might be better if you stop quoting them.
I wasn't going to bother with this thread but have just dipped in as it's still going, and when I saw such a gross misrepresentation of the facts as in your post, I just had to respond.
Your stats are for one year only. The rate of sexual offences against females in England and Wales during their lifetime (well ages 16 to 59) based on UK Government statistics is indeed about one in five and that is what the advocacy groups correctly report. This is likely to understate the true figure because a) females over 59 were not asked and b) not all those asked were in fact 59 years old - there is still plenty of time for the younger ones in the group to be sexually assaulted thus raising the overall 'lifetime' figure. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/an-overview-of-sexual-offending-in-england-and-wales
"Around one in twenty females (aged 16 to 59) reported being a victim of a most serious sexual offence since the age of 16. Extending this to include other sexual offences such as sexual threats, unwanted touching or indecent exposure, this increased to one in five females reporting being a victim since the age of 16."
Equally shocking is the following paragraph:
"Females who had reported being victims of the most serious sexual offences in the last year were asked, regarding the most recent incident, whether or not they had reported the incident to the police. Only 15 per cent of victims of such offences said that they had done so."
Finally, women do seem to suffer disproportionately to men:
"2.5 per cent of females and 0.4 per cent of males said that they had been a victim of a sexual offence (including attempts) in the previous 12 months. "
If you don't understand Government statistics and how to present them, it might be better if you stop quoting them.
Not letting that one go.
If you look within the claims of "rape culture", they make the claim of 1 in 5 which refers to anything which could constitute a sexual offence. In the claims made by CDC in the USA, that included things like intoxicated sexual intercourse, being rubbed up against inadvertently on public transport and the like.
If you look at table 2.6 of the PDF source you give, the actual figures for rape are 4.6 and 3.8 for women = 8.4, still nowhere near 1 in 5 and nowhere near the claims of "rape culture".
A lecturer from the University of Kent also has concerns about the statistics being perpetrated by advocacy and campaign groups and goes on to suggest there is no "rape culture" at British universities:
If you look within the claims of "rape culture", they make the claim of 1 in 5 which refers to anything which could constitute a sexual offence. In the claims made by CDC in the USA, that included things like intoxicated sexual intercourse, being rubbed up against inadvertently on public transport and the like.
If you look at table 2.6 of the PDF source you give, the actual figures for rape are 4.6 and 3.8 for women = 8.4, still nowhere near 1 in 5 and nowhere near the claims of "rape culture".
A lecturer from the University of Kent also has concerns about the statistics being perpetrated by advocacy and campaign groups and goes on to suggest there is no "rape culture" at British universities:
I am not interested in 'Rape Culture' - you raised that not me - or in any of your links other than the official ONS statistics. I am just pointing out where the 1 in 5 comes from, it relates to all sexual offences in England and Wales and as I explained, it is almost inevitably conservative because most of the women interviewed had not lived long enough for it to be a true representation of the 'lifetime' situation for a woman.
Seeking to diminish the impact by quoting rape statistics, and foreign statistics which you then incorrectly claim are discredited, does not wash. You misused the stats from one year to imply that a different 'lifetime' statistic is grossly incorrect when it is nothing of the kind. Sexual offences are all unacceptable and a sickeningly high percentage of young women (and a much lesser though still important percentage of young men) will be subject to it during their lifetime. Even if you consider a "most serious sexual offence" alone, the figure of 1 in 20 is still exceedingly high and is far from the 1 in 2000 that you seemed to imply in your post. You were out by a factor of 100 for goodness sake!
It's 1 in 5 for women (all sexual offences), probably more, and let's not try to pretend by misusing statistics that this isn't a serious problem for society.
Pretty scary situation and one that's relative to many of us who've either been in, or know someone, who has been in a similar situation.
But who scared you? The men or women in your group?
So whose attitudes need adapting and changing?
Or do us women need to stay indoors forever to feel safe?
I was told on the Big Brother forum that women shouldn't leave the house alone when it's not light outside. Mind you, I was told this by the same people who blamed a female contestant for wearing a robe near a drunk man. It was "the slappers" fault that he opened it against her will.
I am not interested in 'Rape Culture' - you raised that not me - or in any of your links other than the official ONS statistics. I am just pointing out where the 1 in 5 comes from, it relates to all sexual offences in England and Wales and as I explained, it is almost inevitably conservative because most of the women interviewed had not lived long enough for it to be a true representation of the 'lifetime' situation for a woman.
Seeking to diminish the impact by quoting rape statistics, and foreign statistics which you then incorrectly claim are discredited, does not wash. You misused the stats from one year to imply that a different 'lifetime' statistic is grossly incorrect when it is nothing of the kind. Sexual offences are all unacceptable and a sickeningly high percentage of young women (and a much lesser though still important percentage of young men) will be subject to it during their lifetime. Even if you consider a "most serious sexual offence" alone, the figure of 1 in 20 is still exceedingly high and is far from the 1 in 2000 that you seemed to imply in your post. You were out by a factor of 100 for goodness sake!
It's 1 in 5 for women (all sexual offences), probably more, and let's not try to pretend by misusing statistics that this isn't a serious problem for society.
The 1 in 5 claim for "rape culture" is disingenuous for the reasons I referred to earlier, backed up by the lecturer I also linked to who also refers to yearly figures from the ONS, dismisses other surveys made for an agenda that simply isn't there and backed up by the commentators in the comments section. This thread refers to rape and common sense measures to reduce your risk of being a victim when going out to a pub or nightclub, the latter generally not done by anyone who is 59 years old. In surveys such as the NUS's Hidden Marks, their 1 in 4 claim also includes "unwanted sexual contact’ includes kissing and ‘touching, including through clothes’" which isn't rape and may have been consensual at the time but in the cold light of sobriety, a different view may evolve and retrospectively wouldn't have been consensual. This is why I only refer to rape statistics from the ONS whilst you measure everything else under sexual offences. Advocacy groups, campaigners and yourself won't help matters with moral panics by claiming stuff that simply isn't there.
No-one is advocating that sexual offences doesn't matter and are trivial, far from it. But in the scope of this thread, it is irrelevant.
The 1 in 5 claim for "rape culture" is disingenuous for the reasons I referred to earlier, backed up by the lecturer I also linked to who also refers to yearly figures from the ONS, dismisses other surveys made for an agenda that simply isn't there and backed up by the commentators in the comments section. This thread refers to rape and common sense measures to reduce your risk of being a victim when going out to a pub or nightclub, the latter generally not done by anyone who is 59 years old. In surveys such as the NUS's Hidden Marks, their 1 in 4 claim also includes "unwanted sexual contact’ includes kissing and ‘touching, including through clothes’" which isn't rape and may have been consensual at the time but in the cold light of sobriety, a different view may evolve and retrospectively wouldn't have been consensual. This is why I only refer to rape statistics from the ONS whilst you measure everything else under sexual offences. Advocacy groups, campaigners and yourself won't help matters with moral panics by claiming stuff that simply isn't there.
No-one is advocating that sexual offences doesn't matter and are trivial, far from it. But in the scope of this thread, it is irrelevant.
I have already said that I am not interested in the 'rape culture' aspects of this, which was brought up first by you anyway, a couple of days ago if DS thread search is to be believed.
I am interested in your gross misuse of statistics (by two orders of magnitude) in an apparent attempt to minimise the seriousness of the situation - the huge volume of sexual offences (including rape) faced by women in particular in their lifetime, but also by men. It's somewhere between 20% or more, and 5% of women, who suffer at least one such offence, depending on seriousness, and is nowhere near the 0.05% that you implied.
The thread is not restricted to rape either, that isn't even mentioned until post #8.
As for alcohol, fact is that nobody knows what effect that has on the overall sexual offence statistics other than it probably increases them by some completely unknown amount, so it's a bit of a pointless argument anyway. The minority of people who drink and then offend sexually is probably a much bigger concern than the small minority of people who drink and then become a victim, but would not have, had they been sober. The Mail article is a bit of a nonsense really because it isn't even clear what it's really on about and certainly doesn't offer any solutions to the problem.
I have already said that I am not interested in the 'rape culture' aspects of this, which was brought up first by you anyway, a couple of days ago if DS thread search is to be believed.
I am interested in your gross misuse of statistics (by two orders of magnitude) in an apparent attempt to minimise the seriousness of the situation - the huge volume of sexual offences (including rape) faced by women in particular in their lifetime, but also by men. It's somewhere between 20% or more, and 5% of women, who suffer at least one such offence, depending on seriousness, and is nowhere near the 0.05% that you implied.
Your assumptions indicate there is a "rape culture", no matter how much you deny it in your first paragraph and then claim it in the second and the ONS stats do not match up to the claims made by ideologues, debunked by scholars, lecturers and scientists as I have quoted. Unless there all wrong and ideologues with an agenda are right. Somehow I'm going to side with academics and scientists on this issue who approach the topic with a rational mind than ideologues pursuing moral panics for an agenda.
This is going to be a case of agreeing to disagree on the statiatics. I simply refuse to "listen and believe".
Having no desire to troll through pages of this discussion/argument my issue is this.
As a woman brought up in the seventies, working in London in the fashion business in the eighties I experienced all kinds of sexual harassment. I'm sure most young women at that time did.
Whilst it was totally inappropriate and very annoying, we dealt with it.
I loved my life, easily dealt with various middle aged idiot chancers, and chose not to get so shit faced that I didn't know whether I wanted to have sex or not.
This is going to be a case of agreeing to disagree on the statiatics. I simply refuse to "listen and believe".
There is no disagreeing to be done as the ONS stats are the best we have. Your 0.05% is wrong unless you specify "per annum". But then you have to multiply it by a large number of years to find out what proportion of living women have either been raped or sexually assaulted, just admit it why don't you!
The answer is: between about 5% and about 20% (or more), depending on what you want to measure, and that is unacceptable in a civilised society. Isn't it?
Comments
Humans are a sexually dimorphic species which means that women are generally weaker, smaller and more vulnerable than men. Women have on average 40-60% of upper body strength and 70-75% of lower body strength of a man. An adult male is on average 4% taller and 8% heavier than a adult female. Male running times in athletics are on average 11% faster than women's times. That is a natural fact and there is absolutely nothing you can do about sexual dimorphism. What you can do something about is minimise your risk of becoming a victim of crime.
I knew someone would say this - why can you not see it as a means of helping other human beings? If you could make a difference, why not? One of the reasons these sorts of schemes are useful is that they work within groups (in this case, groups of males, like sports teams or groups who socialise together).
Which bit of the BIB do you think is true ? Yes it's a fact men are physically stronger and that is why it is usually women who are raped. You can see women as equal in many things, but not in the issue of rape.
I'm not arguing that men should be white knights for women, but is it too much to ask for help in changing the culture that we all live in ? It certainly doesn't seem too much to ask women not to get drunk or dress in a short skirt.
I am reading a lot of anger from men in this thread. Anger against any suggestion that they could assist in changing things for the better. I don't know why this is
Though as said they like to pick a victim as I'm 5'4 and never weighed more than 8 and a half stone they know they stand a better chance mugging/beating me up than a bigger man
Though due to the fact my Dad was alcholic and abusive and I was bullied at school and often got beat up if there is one thing I'm good at it's taking a beating.
Oh give over, no it shouldn't be
I was not suggesting that you stay at home all of the time to prevent burglary, just that you take precautions like making sure your windows are all shut before you go out and not leaving your keys in a place that they can be fished.
In this scenario, a comparison would be not getting so drunk you are not in control, not walking alone, avoiding alleyways where possible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZrzCAuiw7w
The true figures as have just been released in the last day or so by the Office of National Statistics is 1 in 1000 for sexual offences and rape is now at 0.5 per 1000, a slight rise on the last figures I quoted up to 2014. That still is 0.5 too many but it isn't anywhere near the 1 in 5 people claim. We do victims no good whatsoever in using false claims and misleading statistics.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Violent+and+Sexual+Crime#tab-data-tables
I simply refuse to support people advocating for "listen and believe", exaggerated claims with no basis in logic or reality or the unequal treatment through positive or negative discrimination of either gender.
The fault lies firmly with the offender yes, but the victim may be more at risk by virtue of being drunk or incapacitated, and that is the same for someone who might get mugged, physically attacked etc. Lets say someone is very drunk when coming home, he steps out into the road and is hit by a car. The car driver is to blame (lets say) but the victim was more at risk because their wits were not about them.
Its not exactly the same as rape but the bottom line is, if you get drunk when out in the community you are more at risk to something happening to you.
Exactly a predator will always pick prey that is vulnerable.
I think its more accurate to say that the home owner is not 'responsible' for being robbed but the house being unlocked and open made it easier for the house to be robbed and therefore not locking it was a contributory factor in why that particular house was taken advantage of.
A rapist is like any criminal, they will target an item or person that they think they have some success with, a person who looks unsteady on their feet, not really able to make their usual decision, or a car which is easy to steal, that open window leading to a quick getaway with someone's telly etc etc
Every single situation (apart from something ridiculous like a tree falling on someone) has several different contributory factors to it.
Women beat men up
Women beat women up
Sometimes people are just utter d!ckheads, their gender is irrelevant.
This!
Crime isn't gender specific!
ban them all!!!!!!!!!
Banning people would work well I think!
I wasn't going to bother with this thread but have just dipped in as it's still going, and when I saw such a gross misrepresentation of the facts as in your post, I just had to respond.
Your stats are for one year only. The rate of sexual offences against females in England and Wales during their lifetime (well ages 16 to 59) based on UK Government statistics is indeed about one in five and that is what the advocacy groups correctly report. This is likely to understate the true figure because a) females over 59 were not asked and b) not all those asked were in fact 59 years old or thereabouts - there is still plenty of time for the younger ones in the group who reported 'no offences' to be sexually assaulted, thus raising the overall 'lifetime' figure. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/an-overview-of-sexual-offending-in-england-and-wales
"Around one in twenty females (aged 16 to 59) reported being a victim of a most serious sexual offence since the age of 16. Extending this to include other sexual offences such as sexual threats, unwanted touching or indecent exposure, this increased to one in five females reporting being a victim since the age of 16."
Equally shocking is the following paragraph:
"Females who had reported being victims of the most serious sexual offences in the last year were asked, regarding the most recent incident, whether or not they had reported the incident to the police. Only 15 per cent of victims of such offences said that they had done so."
Finally, women do seem to suffer disproportionately to men:
"2.5 per cent of females and 0.4 per cent of males said that they had been a victim of a sexual offence (including attempts) in the previous 12 months. "
If you don't understand Government statistics and how to present them, it might be better if you stop quoting them.
If you look within the claims of "rape culture", they make the claim of 1 in 5 which refers to anything which could constitute a sexual offence. In the claims made by CDC in the USA, that included things like intoxicated sexual intercourse, being rubbed up against inadvertently on public transport and the like.
If you look at table 2.6 of the PDF source you give, the actual figures for rape are 4.6 and 3.8 for women = 8.4, still nowhere near 1 in 5 and nowhere near the claims of "rape culture".
A lecturer from the University of Kent also has concerns about the statistics being perpetrated by advocacy and campaign groups and goes on to suggest there is no "rape culture" at British universities:
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/there-is-no-rape-culture-at-British-universities/14612#.VTwH4ycVhBc
I am not interested in 'Rape Culture' - you raised that not me - or in any of your links other than the official ONS statistics. I am just pointing out where the 1 in 5 comes from, it relates to all sexual offences in England and Wales and as I explained, it is almost inevitably conservative because most of the women interviewed had not lived long enough for it to be a true representation of the 'lifetime' situation for a woman.
Seeking to diminish the impact by quoting rape statistics, and foreign statistics which you then incorrectly claim are discredited, does not wash. You misused the stats from one year to imply that a different 'lifetime' statistic is grossly incorrect when it is nothing of the kind. Sexual offences are all unacceptable and a sickeningly high percentage of young women (and a much lesser though still important percentage of young men) will be subject to it during their lifetime. Even if you consider a "most serious sexual offence" alone, the figure of 1 in 20 is still exceedingly high and is far from the 1 in 2000 that you seemed to imply in your post. You were out by a factor of 100 for goodness sake!
It's 1 in 5 for women (all sexual offences), probably more, and let's not try to pretend by misusing statistics that this isn't a serious problem for society.
I was told on the Big Brother forum that women shouldn't leave the house alone when it's not light outside. Mind you, I was told this by the same people who blamed a female contestant for wearing a robe near a drunk man. It was "the slappers" fault that he opened it against her will.
No-one is advocating that sexual offences doesn't matter and are trivial, far from it. But in the scope of this thread, it is irrelevant.
I am interested in your gross misuse of statistics (by two orders of magnitude) in an apparent attempt to minimise the seriousness of the situation - the huge volume of sexual offences (including rape) faced by women in particular in their lifetime, but also by men. It's somewhere between 20% or more, and 5% of women, who suffer at least one such offence, depending on seriousness, and is nowhere near the 0.05% that you implied.
The thread is not restricted to rape either, that isn't even mentioned until post #8.
As for alcohol, fact is that nobody knows what effect that has on the overall sexual offence statistics other than it probably increases them by some completely unknown amount, so it's a bit of a pointless argument anyway. The minority of people who drink and then offend sexually is probably a much bigger concern than the small minority of people who drink and then become a victim, but would not have, had they been sober. The Mail article is a bit of a nonsense really because it isn't even clear what it's really on about and certainly doesn't offer any solutions to the problem.
This is going to be a case of agreeing to disagree on the statiatics. I simply refuse to "listen and believe".
As a woman brought up in the seventies, working in London in the fashion business in the eighties I experienced all kinds of sexual harassment. I'm sure most young women at that time did.
Whilst it was totally inappropriate and very annoying, we dealt with it.
I loved my life, easily dealt with various middle aged idiot chancers, and chose not to get so shit faced that I didn't know whether I wanted to have sex or not.
Different worlds we live in now.
There is no disagreeing to be done as the ONS stats are the best we have. Your 0.05% is wrong unless you specify "per annum". But then you have to multiply it by a large number of years to find out what proportion of living women have either been raped or sexually assaulted, just admit it why don't you!
The answer is: between about 5% and about 20% (or more), depending on what you want to measure, and that is unacceptable in a civilised society. Isn't it?