hollis@ucf-cs.UUCP (William ) (10/31/84)
[] I would ask that ANYBODY referring to rape (or any other mental disorders) take a look at the book of psychological problems. The book is a compilation of all the statistics and diagnosis that you would ever wish to know. I don't offhand remember the name ((something something )II ?DMS II?,if you wish the name, I can ask somebody), but in there, the #1 rape cause IS violence,but not far behind it is just the the male wanted sex. Whenever someone says that what they are saying is 'proven statistically', or that 'everybody knows it', the one thought that I think of is 'lies, damn lies, and statistics'. The person attempting to make their point is,of course,going to take the worst case possibility, and not tell the other side. Whenever I hear the 'fact' that the rapist 'had their sexual needs met', I happened to first hear that as 'the rapist had a girlfriend', which then (somehow) implied that his needs were being met. I do not want to hear 'well documented fact' unless I know the source, the statistics (percent error, sample size, etc) and supporting evidence. I have heard for a long time all these 'facts', etc by such 'noted' people as Dr. Joyce Brothers (oh boy), and never any reports with statistics, etc to back them up. I just wish people would P L E A S E back up what they are saying with hard evidence. Do not construe the above as defending either side of the issue, but as an attempt to bring more information into the fold. Ken Hollis
jfh@browngr.UUCP (John "Spike" Hughes) (11/08/84)
My suspicion is that a statistic is about as useless as an undocumented
assertion: I've never trusted them at all, and that's because I know something
about the methods used for deriving them. If you're going to insist on statistics,
I'd like to insist on the inclusion of the methodology used in gathering the
data.
Besides, I find it more enlightening to read what our various net.women
readers *believe* to be obvious or well known -- I can go out and try to
find verification myself....rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (11/09/84)
[ Problem # 1000 : No diagnosable mental disorder ]
In article <1631@ucf-cs.UUCP> hollis@ucf-cs.UUCP (William ) suggests
looking at DSM II. This is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual,
Second Edition, used by Psychiatrists/ologists and most imporantly,
insurance companies, for the purpose of putting a number onto your
problem (so your shrink can get paid :-) ). DSM II defines violence
as the #1 cause of rape (according to Hollis; my copy of DSM II and
I parted ways several years ago).
I'm not trying to argue with this idea, but I'd like a better source
than DSM II (they are up to DSM III now, by the way).
At one point in the history of this book, homosexuality was a disease.
Now it isn't. DSM has a strong tendency to reflect contemporary
opinions rather than research findings.
The idea (rape = violence) is probably right, but DSM I/II/III is a pretty
ludicrous authority to try and use. I spent too much time studying the
ins and outs of psychiatric diagnosis, and like many of my fellow
students ended up feeling that the old Bob Newhart show summed
it up best : "Bob, it's all a crock."
"Anyone who'd go to see a psychologist,
ought to have his head examined!"
--
Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC
1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706
{allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick