Never mind murder. Murder's pretty uncommon. On the other hand, 1 in 5 American women report having been the victim of either rape or an attempted rape. Even more report some incident of domestic violence so I can assure you that you walk past some pretty awful people every day. You probably work with some of them too.
You are conflating a university study with all women. And the 1 in 5 number comes from a study with a strong self selection bias, and also conflates drunken sex and unwanted kissing with rape. Better studies produced a 1 in 40 estimate.
But by all means produce your better studies than a comprehensive one by the CDC.
The figures are accurate, but there's a lot of people with an emotional investment in not believing the numbers. This phenomenon is a symptom of patriarchy, btw. Ask your feminist friends about it, you'll be amazed.
Again you used the word "rape" which isn't what the CDC measured.
It was a telephone survey dependent upon what the respondent regards as rape. Nearly half of what they counted as "rape" were categorized "drunk/drug facilitated penetration". So they count anytime a man drugs a woman and has sex with her against her consent (which is clearly rape), as well as if a woman drinks too much, has sex, regrets it and later answers a survey that it was rape because that man should have known better.
Rape is a horrific crime. But trying to pump up the statistics by using vague and overly broad definitions isn't right either.
What is science without rigorous definitions? Imagine you ask 100 women if they were ever raped and 25 say yes. You ask each for details, and twenty describe horrific encounters that were clearly rape. Five say they had drunk sex against their better judgment with a persistent suitor who claimed he loved them, and then he never called again and they felt violated.
What would be the scientific measure of rape in this survey, 20 or 25? Do you let the victims decide what the definition of rape is, or does the scientist have a reasonable definition of rape that they apply to the victim's experience?
Except that isn't rape and only stupid men think women believe it is. However, what definite _is_ rape is sex without consent due to alcoholic incapacitation of the victim. This gives you victims who would have great difficulty proving a damn thing in court. Victims who get their attack consistently mischaracterised by men who prefer to believe a man's version of events over a woman's.
Now, if you're asking me how many women have been raped in a fashion that is likely to result in a conviction, I'll agree that the number is much smaller. But let's not confuse a failure in society with a society where this stuff doesn't happen.
You talk about a "scientist", only all these reports are stuck together by actual scientists, and all you've managed to produce is some flimsy MRA talking points.
TL;DR; Try believing women for once. It's surprisingly informative.
It's curious that you define rape as something that happens to a woman, whereas "sex without consent due to alcoholic incapacitation of the victim" can happen to a male, too. I've had male friends raped in that way, and the only one who tried to report it to the police was disgusted by the officer's response: "Score!" He outright refused to take a complaint from my friend.
Rape is also defined (by the Rape Crisis Centre in New Zealand) as sex where one party has pressured the (unwilling) other into it, pressured the other into sexual acts, used alcohol or drugs to generate compliance, or even simply used force. Each and every one of those can be applied to a sexual encounter between a male and a female, with a non-consenting male. Would you just believe the women in those cases, too?
Something that's quite interesting to note, I've seen a citation of "The Gender of Sexuality" by Rutter and Schwartz for a claim that lesbian women reported rape by their partners in 1 out of 3 relationships, double the rate claimed for heterosexual relationships. (I haven't read the book, and the citation was quite some years ago.)
You make some good points and you're right, men can be victims and women can be perpetrators. And yes, women can be liars. But liars to the extent that it invalidates the CDC's preferred methods? I'd need to see some hard proof of that.
> You are conflating a university study with all women
Are they? Yes, that figure comes up in campus studies, but there's not-too-dissimilar numbers for the general population. For instance, RAINN cites a 1998 NIJ/CDC survey as saying that about 1 in 6 American women had “been the victim of an attempted or completed rape” in their lifetimes. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence
> the 1 in 5 number comes from a study
There's more than one campus sexual assault study which gives a figure in that range. Which one are you referring to?
