jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (08/30/84)
> The figure is not unreasonable (at least for women in big cities). > IN Dallas there are 700 rapes / year (reported). There are 500,000 women. Funny you should pick Dallas. I seem to remember reading a few years back that Dallas has the highest rate of reported rapes (by a considerable amount) in the nation. > Population divided by two. Performing the indicated operations that means > 7 per cent of all women will be raped. (Assuming there is a 50 year > window). That's a *big* assumption. Do you think a woman of 60 has the same chance of being raped as a woman of 20? Hardly. You have to make an age breakdown of those 700 rapes and determine the effective window based on that. I suspect 15 is more reasonable. > If one takes estimates that 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 rapes are actually reported, > a 1 in 3 figure is reasonable. One may disagree with those estimates without being unreasonable. Say 1 in 3. With my assumptions, the number is now 6.3% instead of 33% (in Dallas). Which is still pretty frightening. But not nearly as effective grist for the propaganda mills. Jeff Winslow
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (08/31/84)
] > Population divided by two. Performing the indicated operations that means ] > 7 per cent of all women will be raped. (Assuming there is a 50 year ] > window). ] ] That's a *big* assumption. Do you think a woman of 60 has the same chance of ] being raped as a woman of 20? Hardly. You have to make an age breakdown of ] those 700 rapes and determine the effective window based on that. I suspect ] 15 is more reasonable. Go back to your Intro To Stat class, Jeff. That 700 out of 500,000 figure is for the *entire* population of women. If women in one age category are less likely to be raped, those in another are more. If we accept your assumption that only women from, say, 17-32 are at risk, then the chance of them getting raped must be about 5 times higher (assuming uniform age distribution for the sake of argument) than 700 out of 500,000, in order to produce the composite figure. (Alas, women, and girls, of all ages are at risk...) ] With my assumptions, the number is now 6.3% instead of 33% (in Dallas). ] Which is still pretty frightening. But not nearly as effective grist for ] the propaganda mills. ] Jeff Winslow ``Propaganda mills''? Sounds like a ``conspiracy'' theory. Why are you trying to deny the problem, Jeff? Dallas does, indeed, have a high rape rate compared to other cities--but so does Los Angeles, New York, and other *large* cities. The problem is here, and it is grave. Were I to find a conspiracy here, it would be one of silence. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
bmg@tekecs.UUCP (Barbara Gniewosz Theus) (09/02/84)
You ask the question Would a woman of 60 be as likely to to raped as a woman of 20? Then you answer the question yourself by saying 'hardly'. Unfortunately you are very wrong. It is the other way around. A WOMAN OF 60 IS MORE LIKELY TO BE RAPED THAN A WOMAN OF 20. I was told this by a policeman who was at my house investigating a rape charge. The following information was reported to me by the investigator. As you have said yourself - rape is an act of violence. The elderly are much more likely to be attacked in any act of violence. They are not as able to run or defend themselves. They more frequenly live alone. They generally do not report the incidence for fear of being laughed at. It seems many people believe as you do (and I did). You later state that you do not believe the statistic that only 1/4 to 1/6 rapes are actually reported. You felt 1/3 was a more realistic figure. I was told that the reported rapes here in the Portland Oregon area is believed to be 1 report for 10 to 15 actual rapes. The person who broke into our house admitted to having attacked over a dozen women in 10 months - this was the first report. After having his confessions, the police contacted the homes where he broke in and were able to convince most of the women to admit that they had been attacked. My information is 6 years old, but I still feel it is valid. The only real difference today is that the crime rate in the Portland area is considerably higher than it was 6 years ago.
minow@decvax.UUCP (Martin Minow) (09/02/84)
A friend of mine, who did her PhD. thesis on violence against women -- and what they can do about it -- suggested that the real statistics may be much greater that what has been reported. Including all forms of violence against women: rapes, assaults within a relationship, and assaults in the family (child-abuse), 40% of all women in the United States will encounter some form of violence in their lifetimes. Martin Minow decvax!minow
welsch@houxu.UUCP (Larry Welsch) (09/05/84)
An interesting question that hasn't been raised is how many me are assaulted. I know that while I am physically large and quite strong (easily press a hundred lbs.) there have been a couple of occaisions when a group a men have assaulted me. I also have several male friends and male relatives who have been assaulted. Somehow, 15% sounds like a low number if we are counting assaults for men. Considering I lead a conservative life style I would not be surprised if 80-90% of men have been assaulted. Larry Welsch houxu!welsch
np19ac@sdcc10.UUCP (09/11/84)
Jeff:
Sorry to criticise your statistics, but if 700 women are raped
each year in a city with a female pop. of 500,000, there is a 7%
chance each one will be raped regardless of whether the rapists
prefer nubile young things or could care less about age. If only
women from 20-30 are assaulted, then the correct population to use
is the female population from 20-30, so
700 * 100
----------- = .07
100,000
Presumably 7% of the women from 30 to 70 were raped in their younger
years.
Do you really think our argument about rapist's age preferences
or the percentage of the population who will be victims are really
useful, comforting to the victims or otherwise of value?
Bozo the Clone
(If you thought one of me was bad...)mazur@inmet.UUCP (09/11/84)
>> Population divided by two. Performing the indicated operations that means >> 7 per cent of all women will be raped. (Assuming there is a 50 year >> window). > That's a *big* assumption. Do you think a woman of 60 has the same chance of > being raped as a woman of 20? Hardly. You have to make an age breakdown of > those 700 rapes and determine the effective window based on that. I suspect > 15 is more reasonable. Actually, I think age matters very little as far as chance of being raped. Rape is not a sexual crime, it is a violent crime. It is not a requirement that rape victims "entice" their attackers by being "sexually appealing". Beth Mazur {ihnp4,ima,harpo}!inmet!mazur
holt@convex.UUCP (09/18/84)
> Actually, I think age matters very little as far as chance of being raped. > Rape is not a sexual crime, it is a violent crime. It is not a requirement > that rape victims "entice" their attackers by being "sexually appealing". > > Beth Mazur > Beth, The statement that rape is not a sexual crime is probably wrong lots of the time. Statistics would indicate that rape is a violent crime. But, some of the reported rapes, and (I would guess) most unreported rapes are sexually motivated. I think it is misleading to think that no rapes are sexually motivated. That violence is present in almost all rapes is probable. It is used to subdue the woman. But the motivation may be sexual. I agree that victims do NOT entice their attackers. Rather, the attackers are mentally warped to the point where age/attractiveness/enticement is not important. The one thing that can be said that is not a generalization is that rape is a very bad encroachment of a women's rights as a human being. It should not go unpunished. Better yet, it should go the way of the dinasoars. I suggest castration as a punishment. The real fear of castration would prevent many rapes. From a psychological point of view, the threat of castration is more severe than the threat of death. Dave Holt Convex Computer Corp. {allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!convex!holt