False Rape Accusations May Be More Common Than Thought

Fox News ^ | 5/3/2006 | Locomotive Breath

[Alia]

And then last but not least: blacks think alike; vote alike. The "racialist" article.

The statistical analysis, compiled by a political science professor at Vanderbilt University, indicates that white voters split on Nifong, with a slim majority supporting challenger Freda Black. However, blacks voted for Nifong by a nearly 2-to-1 ratio over Black, who finished 883 votes behind Nifong, unofficial results showed.

And wowsa does the following make the point of the article clearer:

"Often in Durham, whenever there is a black candidate who receives the endorsement of the Durham Committee, then they get a majority of the black vote," said Christian Grose, the Vanderbilt professor and a Duke graduate. In this case, he said, "a white candidate [Nifong] who did not get the endorsement of the committee got a greater percentage of the black vote. That's not to say that race wasn't part of the story, but race was not the determining factor in this election."

Was this "verbiage" provided by someone whose cranial lobes do not work in "harmonic convergence"? Is this indicative of bi-polar, or what?

Let me translate the above para: Race was a factor, a large one, in getting Nifong elected. But the reason it can't really be called race.. is because Nifong is white.

The remainder of the article is extremely worth while in reading, and studying. Paraphrased: Nifong ran a campaign appealing to the "black voter" on "anti-slavery/pro-reparations" platform. One sentence reads as Nifong doing this "thing" but only to help pave the wave for a Black DA, one day, in Durham.

However, the Black candidate running for DA, also, didn't have a chance given the way the Duke Case Was run by Nifong, et al.

So. Durham DID have a chance to elect its FIRST BLACK DA. But didn't because a White LIBERAL man saw an opportunity to play the race card and get himself elected.

Take it awaaayyy, Johnny!

[Nowhere Man]

My "Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..." was actually just a surprise at the fact that finally, FINALLY, someone was talking about the fake rape allegations, which get thrown into the stats as "real" and thrhereby throw off the true figures.

While rape is, sadly, a very real crime, far too much of it is just "morning after regret" and/or revenge.

Yeah, I now what you mean. Although this is a little off the subject but it can still be related since it was used as a tool of revenge. My buddy I've been hanging around with since grade school, had a girlfriend (GF) with three kids. She got mad at him for some reason and called the cops on him, claiming my friend abused her kids physically (NOT Sexually, just plain physical abuse) and the cops came, got him, and he spent a night in county lockup. Later, his now former GF's father fessed up and told the truth that he did no such thing so the case and charges were dropped. Thank God everything turned out OK, but to put my buddy and his mother through a night and perhaps a day of anguish like that is really terrible at best and criminal at worse. I admit I'm generally 99.9% against capital punishment, but there are times we need to curtail the zeal to punish in such crimes so we can find out the truth and determine if the accused is truly guilty first. If there is a conviction based on facts, depending on the crime, lock them up for a very long time, maybe even life if it is warranted, perhaps to a prison built in the Aleutians somewhere. Seeing what my friend went though, I guess has cooled my jets a bit.

[nopardons]

Oh dear...what a story! Thank goodness that your friend was exonerated.

[nopardons]

bttt

[nopardons]

bttt

[nopardons]

Yes, it did.

[drhogan]

if i remember correctly, the number of "unreported" rapes comes from comparing two sources: crime victims reports to police and the FBI national crime survey. the crime survey has higher reports of rape than the actual police reports, so it has been concluded that rape is under-reported to the police. however, they are reported to the fbi survey. i don't know how this compares to the studies being discussed on this thread, because i am not up to date on current rape statistics.

[Nowhere Man]

Oh dear...what a story! Thank goodness that your friend was exonerated.

Tell me about it. His Mom was all in a tizzy and tied 5 different ways about it. I thank God she was healthier at that time, she has kidney failure now, otherwise it could really affect her health. He's all she has as well. I guess you got to be careful out there, yes, assault crimes need to be punished but there are people out there who would claim that such a thing happen but really didn't as an act of revenge. I've been burned personally myself through a false accusation but it wasn't as bad or as serious, it was more of a computer issue where one girl thought I was following her online on various BBS'es (electronic bulletin boards, this was before the internet, I'm talking 1989 here) as this one but I was really bent for a while over it.

[Alia]

FYI.

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Rape rates continue to decline.

Note: Includes both attempted and completed rapes. The National Crime Victimization Survey redesign was implemented in 1993; the area with the lighter shading is before the redesign and the darker area after the redesign. The data before 1993 are adjusted to make them comparable with data collected since the redesign. The adjustment methods are described in Criminal Victimization 1973-95. Estimates for 1996 and beyond are based on collection year while earlier estimates are based on data year. For additional information about the methods used, see Criminal Victimization 2004.

Source: The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) Ongoing since 1972, this survey of households interviews about 75,000 persons age 12 and older in 42,000 households twice each year about their victimizations from crime.

Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. ATTEMPTED RATE INCLUDES VERBAL THREATS OF RAPE [my emphasis].

***

First I cruised the feminist cites -- these are hysterical.

However, what I believe many of the feminist sites include in their numbers of "rape" are "rapes in prisons", as well as other non-specific numbers and actions.

But check this out:

Rape Stats

Here is a summary of the forcible rape statistics for 2003 (the feminist-site number do not at all square with these numbers:

An estimated 93,433 forcible rapes occurred in the Nation during 2003. This number represents a 1.9-percent decrease from the 2002 estimate.

The UCR Program estimated that 63.2 of every 100,000 females in the Nation were victims of forcible rape in 2003. This rate represented a 2.7-percent decrease from the 2002 rate.

By community type, the rate of forcible rape in the Nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) was estimated at 64.5 forcible rapes per 100,000 females. There were an estimated 75.1 forcible rapes per 100,000 females in cities outside MSAs and 45.7 forcible rapes per 100,000 females in the Nation's nonmetropolitan counties

**

The above doesn't respond to your post; I just think I must include this first to establish a numbers base before I get at data concerning "unreported rapes".

[Alia]

From Feministing.com

This blog is discussing the Duke case...

I don't know if this is always the case, but from the specific article cited above, it seemed to me to be saying that they arrived at the figure for reported vs. unreported rapes by comparing the number of police reports of rape to the number of calls received by rape crisis hotlines, and found a large gap between the two.

Additionally, The Carolina Journal: The Problem of Rape Statistics: Real risks buried in a mountain of misleading data, scare stories, May 2003

---

RALEIGH — A news article in The Daily Tar Heel April 24 contained a shocking lead: “A woman is raped every two minutes. Almost one in every four women between the ages of 18 and 24 is a survivor of sexual assault.”

No sources for this information are given — which is mildly surprising since it is published in the campus newspaper for the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a UNC flagship university with a well-known school of journalism. It is not, however, unusual for any campus discussion of that particular subject. Here are a few examples just from the current academic year:

• “There are probably 200 to 250 undergraduate men on this campus who are rapists (one out of 15), based on a 15-year old survey. Fifteen percent of undergraduate men say they would commit rape if there was no chance of punishment.” Jillian Johnson, “Stop Rape at Duke,” Duke University Chronicle, Feb. 27, 2003

• “1 in 4 college women,” sign seen at UNC-Chapel Hill protest of violence against women, as reported in the DTH, Nov. 5, 2002

• “Anytime a woman is drunk and has sex, she has then been raped.” Andrew A. Farr, N.C. State Technician, Sept. 24, 2002

• “Every three hours and 52 minutes, a rape is committed in North Carolina. Most of the victims are women. One in four college women report surviving rape.” Dana Henderson, Technician, Sept. 10, 2002

Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism?, has provided the answer. The one-in-four statistic hails from a 1985 Ms. magazine report by Mary Koss. Koss interviewed about 3,000 randomly selected college women about sexual violation. She determined that 25.7 percent were victims of rape or attempted rape “because they gave answers that fit Koss’s criteria for rape” — which bear scrutiny, as they are “penetration by penis, finger, or other object under coercive influence such as physical force, alcohol, or threats.” Those broad criteria may explain why only 27 percent of Koss’ “rape victims” considered themselves to be rape victims. Also, Koss considered a woman a victim of sexual assault if she answered “yes” to (and 53.7 “victims” did) “Have you ever given in to sex play (fondling, kissing, or petting, but not intercourse) when you didn’t want to because you were overwhelmed by a man’s continual arguments and pressure?”

University of California Berkeley Professor Neil Gilbert pointed out a key flaw in that study: Koss’s categorizing as having been raped any woman who answered “yes” to “Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?” As Gilbert wrote in Current Controversies in Family Violence, edited by Richard Gelles and Donileen Loseke, “What does having sex ‘because’ a man gives you drugs or alcohol signify? A positive response does not indicate whether duress, intoxication, force, or the threat of force were present; whether the woman’s judgment or control were substantially impaired; or whether the man purposefully got the woman drunk in order to prevent her resistance to sexual advances.”

Sommers also points out a key flaw in the “one-in-eight” statistic cited above, which is from Dean Kilpatrick’s "National Woman’s Study." Kilpatrick’s study is “a fairly straightforward and well-designed survey” on rape and asked questions about intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, or penetration by “fingers or objects” done “against your will by using force or threat of harm.” The last category, however, as Sommers explains, “includes cases in which a boy penetrated a girl with his finger, against her will, in a heavy petting situation. Certainly the boy behaved badly. But is he a rapist? Probably neither he nor his date would say so,” she wrote. “Yet the survey classifies him as a rapist and her as a rape victim.”

Politics intrude

The problem of the faulty statistics owes to “the intrusion of politics into the field of inquiry,” Sommers said. “There are many researchers who study rape victimization, but their relatively low figures generate no headlines.” Among them: a 1993 Louis Harris and Associates telephone poll that found only 2 percent of women were victims of rape or sexual assault; Professor Mary Gordon of the University of Washington’s 1981 study that found only one in 50 women raped; and Duke researcher Dr. Linda George, who found, using “questions very close to Kilpatrick’s” one in 17.

Another problem Sommers cites is “the morally indefensible way that public funds for combating rape are being allocated.” Specifically, “college women are getting the lion’s share of public resources for combating rape” despite studies (which she cites) showing that rape rates are far higher in poor areas than wealthy areas and far lower for women on a college or university campus than for women off campus.

Underscoring that latter fact, UNC-Greensboro students are dealing with the reality of a serial rapist who is attacking women in neighborhoods near campus (seven had been attacked by mid-April). Major J. C. Herring, assistant chief of UNCG Police, wrote to the UNCG Carolinian April 7 pointing out that “None of the attacks occurred on campus” and said “the University should use the incidents to encourage students to live on campus where they have the benefit of secured residence halls, well lighted streets, a professional police force, and the safety escort service.”

At UNC-CH, meanwhile, the DTH story cited at the beginning of this article contrasted the “one-in-four” claim with UNC-CH’s comparatively low numbers of “only two rapes [on campus] in 2002 and only 17 sexual assault victims.” For the DTH, “the numbers don’t add up” — and it takes the “one-in-four” statistic as gospel truth while viewing UNC-CH police’s official numbers as clearly wrong and indicative of a greater problem.

UNC-CH’s solution underscores Sommers’ point about rape resource allocation. “UNC officials submitted a grant application last week to the U.S. Department of Justice,” the story said. “If the grant is approved, the money will be used to re-evaluate UNC’s Sexual Assault Response Plan, add an antiviolence program to C-TOPS and create a media campaign against violence at the University, said Melinda Manning, assistant dean of students.”

[nopardons]

Oh dear and now the poor woman has kidney failure? Thank GOD that this isn't happening now. You're right...it would kill her!

I'm so very sorry to hear that you, too, had an untoward situation to face, as well. There are a LOT of crazy people out there.

False claims take time away from REAL crimes and criminals and THAT stinks!

[OakOak]

Good article. You'd think that these feminists and liberals that distort and wield this subject like a weapon would understand that they're not helping anyone by placing people in a position where you are suspected of being something through sheer existence. If you are a man, you are considered a rapist unless you demonstrate a commitment to supporting the feminist position and the best way to demonstrate that is to join in our condemnation of men.

I had political discussions with many a man that says, well white people think this, OR well men like to think they can do what they want with women. I respond, Aren't you white?
Aren't you a man?

I think there's some serious self loathing (and the pressure the PC forces) going on in these cases. Men are individuals. Woman are individuals. I wish I had a nickel for every time I heard on TV, during the Clinton-Lewinsky era, "that's how all men are". All men are the same, everyone lies (under oath) about sex.

I thought that strange because I don't know of any subject where the Media tells us (or the Colleges teach) that all women are the same.

[Alia]

Good post.

I thought that strange because I don't know of any subject where the Media tells us (or the Colleges teach) that all women are the same.

Since the 60s, the drill HAS been that women "think the same". "Hi I'm a penis-envy power-mad wanna be, and I represent ALL WOMEN". Bill Clinton's "issues" made that a dificult one to continue. Feminists did NOT support the females who were speaking out and in difference to themselves. IOW, the feminist "mind-meld" was exposed as a hoax and fraud.

So, since then I've observed their strategy has been one of culling their allied memberships and having a "rep" from each present a corner of the "master agenda", so that an impression of "diversity within the ranks" is more important while pressing forward with "ideologic" sameness.

Socialists communists can only rise to power if they can find a group or a person to demonize.

Look at the various "demons" who've arisen (and been used to date):

Racism

Class

Sex.

The three tenents of liberalism is to wage warfare based upon those three things. Always. So, in essence, nothing has changed whatsoever in the arsenal of the left.

And you are right about the self-loathing within these ideologic groups which ally together. The self-loathing has gone on for so long it has now evolved to "excessively high self-esteem". Bullying.

That old adage applies here: "If you can't dazzle with brilliance, baffle with BS.

This is the ploy being promoted since the Duke case began.

Defense needs to be aware that it is pure smoke. To hold fast, and because the "smoke" dissipates of its own accord.

Now, in re the "underreported" rapes -- usually the basis upon which "crisis centers" have based their fundings on -- these have an interest in maintaining high numbers -- for the money and grants.

The Koss study reveals the "word" skewing of what constitutues "rape".

For over 30 years, the American public has been OVER-EDUCATED in the crisis known as "rape". So, why the heck would a college chick call a "crisis center" rather than the police? Could it be because of the word "skewings" of rape? Could it be that some chicks, lonely at campus are simply looking for attention and know they'll get attention, if not new friends on campus if they use the "rape" word?

College campuses are supposed to be for "educating". And if young college kids have a confused understanding of what constitutes "RAPE" -- then it is high time to abolish these so-called "crisis centers" for promoting the dumbing down of what is "rape".

If the liberals had to actually acount for individuals as "individuals" -- they'd have no bleedin' political platform. Zero. Nada.

[OakOak]

YES!

I don't know who said it, but Indoctrination is the word that applies.. Our Public School System and the Entire Media (TV, Print, etc) have really changed the landscape. Kids are taught to identify racist language & codewords by the majority and then they're told blacks cannot be racist.

You even see some of that on here, a person that "reads or suspects" racism is at the bottom of an accurate statement. But, people are taught to ascertain and analyze the accuracy of the statement, but rather to discredit it in the name of the overall good of society. Conversely, minorities can be blatantly racist in their writings and the same people are conditioned to not question what is being said and evaluate the writer using a totally different standard.

It's second nature to many.