The College Rape Overcorrection

[Formless]

Eh, what the hell. Aether you are a newbie, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt; but I really do have to keep this short and to the point. That last post was actually longer than I intended. See what I mean about simplifying my life? These arguments used to be a real time waster for me.

Alcohol is a common element of the situations, but it does not mean that alcohol influences the two situations in the same way. It does not necessarily form a logical analogy because of its presence. As I said, the drunk driver can make a choice before getting drunk (as do people seeking sex with alcohol), and so society is holding them liable for the choice they made at the time of being sober to take no precautions. Whereas the person who goes to have a drink in a social context has no control over other people before, during, or after drinking. There is also a cultural belief system surrounding alcohol in general that causes widespread harm in our society that we want to discourage to decrease harm. Harm reduction is another purpose of the law, and the biggest one that influences drunk driving laws. So sometimes the law must take that into consideration, and that can mean that while impaired judgement is understandable in one set of circumstances, it is the entire reason another situation is dangerous. Utilitarian logic, you understand?

Also, you phrased something wrong there. "...it's the act of having sex while drunk which is being argued as a crime." This is wrong, although I think a product of typing error rather than understanding. It is the act of having non-consensual sex that is a crime, and the presence of alcohol that is argued (well, really its just a fact) that makes consent impossible past a certain point of inebriation.

[Jub]

You'd really need to ask somebody who has extensive experience with drinking and interacting with drunken people.
From my POV, I can tell that there is both a "too drunk to consent" and a "not entirely sober, but still able to consent."
But I don't have the background to define a strict line between the two.

Then you're clearly unqualified to represent your side of this debate and should concede. If you can't define where your argument starts and mine ends, you can't really have a proper debate.

That'd be the "fair standard" I referred to above.
Needs to offer enough protection without being unduly restrictive, and shouldn't leave a significant grey area.
You're not going to get that from me, for obvious reasons.
But anyway, "best effort" away...

At least you're trying, better than most here have done.

That's obviously over the line.

Agreed.

Seems suspicious. Hands off.

I stand by taking full responsibility for your actions at this stage. I've been there more times than I can count and even in this state I've still been able to deal with cops/bylaw officers when required and have never been fined or arrested at this state of intoxication. Anecdotal I know, but my experience with drink as well as the experience of my friends has been that you're still expected to be in control at this point or pull back on the drink enough to avoid this state.

Should be fine, although you may want to get some input from people who have experience with that level of intoxication.

I've been to all three of these states, only in the last would I have felt raped. I've spoken to men and women, straight and gay and trans, in my social circle and they agree that if you have sex while mobile and able to understand where you are and who you're with you need to own that choice.

Checking the "Progressive effects of alcohol" table on wikipedia, "Impaired Reasoning" seems significant.
Apparently that typically comes with Disinhibition and Extroversion.
And it sits right between "stumbling with slurred speech" and what could be summed up as "mildly tipsy and giggly."

I'm afraid I'll have to call this our grey area.

I disagree that there should be a grey area in a crime so damning as rape. Do better.

One person making a mistake does not give somebody else carte blanche to exploit that.

It's not exploitation if she came to bed willingly.

That's a false dilemma - both have a responsibility for their actions.

Then how can one of them be raped and the other be a rapist? If one can use I was too drunk to consent as a defense the other can use I wad too drunk to know she was drunk and invalidate the crime. If that is the case, why have the law at all?

And we're back to the part where one person's mistakes do not absolve somebody else of guilt if he* takes advantage of them.
*continuing your example

You've yet to define what taking advantage even is.

[Jub]

Let me say this again, since you are basically restating the same damn question I entered to answer yesterday. And let me be clear, I only entered the thread to answer this one question for a newbie, I don't intend to get sucked in any more than this. This is the last post I will make on the subject, and then I'm going to continue preparing for Christmass. You have no idea how much I've simplified my life by using certain websites less, SDN obviously included.

There is a fundamental inequality between people who get drunk and then victimize others and people who get drunk and are victimized by others. I mean, really, phrased that way it should be obvious that there is a fundamental inequity, but I'll elucidate anyway. And lets ditch hypothetical situations since I believe they are being used as rationalizations to avoid the cultural issue here.

Alcohol lowers inhibitions, hence its name "liquid courage". It wouldn't have that name if people didn't specifically know this and use it as a means to an end. It is also a known aspect of drinking culture that people liquor up to enable behaviors they find difficult to do while sober. That's why there are bars in every city that are notorious for their fights: there isn't really a such thing as a raging drunk, just angry people who get drunk to let out their aggression on others, and they know which bars to do that at. People also use liquor to get sex, and may not care if they get it fairly or not. They may even lack faith in their ability to get laid while sober. The problem with what has been proposed is that it assumes the decision to have sex was made by both parties while drunk; in reality its usually something that the proposing party wanted before the first round of drinks, and its heavily influenced by cultural attitudes towards sex and alcohol. They may not go into the situation with a plan to commit date rape (though all too often they very much do), but they do go into it with a purpose. They may not even get as drunk as they think, because their perceptions of their own intoxication are effected by their perceptions of alcohol itself; in other words, they psych themselves up and chalk it up to the liquor. Thus, it is easy for someone to think they are more drunk than they really are.

Which brings us to another faulty assumption: that the victimizer and the victim are equally drunk when the decision is made, even assuming that the desicion wasn't made when sober. Another reality is that people have different tolerances to alcohol, and that they can and do use this fact to drink others under the table. Sometimes without even realizing what they are doing, because hey, they are drunk. Their judgement is impaired. But they may also do it subconciously, because again, they want to have an excuse and their culture says its okay.

And this is the final inequity, the reason society does not allow drunkenness as an absolute excuse for these other crimes like assault, and why drunk driving is a crime unto itself. People already falsely believe that their behavior is excused by their intoxicated state, and specifically seek out drinks as a justification or to muddy the water. Its basically the same problem as "boys will be boys", only repackaged with alcohol. It allows more people to get hurt, and harm prevention is the whole point of drunk driving laws. Now, I know that it is difficult to police date rape and similar crimes. But allowing the attitudes that perpetuate it to slide is something that we can change by not repeating them as if they were valid, and ultimately any change in law or policing more often reflects a change in attitude than it does precede it anyway. People don't lose all of their faculties all at once, so before they get that drunk they should already have a plan not to make a decision this dangerous, and should not surround themselves with people who will enable them to do so. Much as they should plan against driving while drunk. The designated driver can also be the one who protects you from yourself, for instance.

So there you go. Many people drink to have fun, but ideas of "fun" vary and very often do not include mixing alcohol and sex, particularly the groups most likely to be date raped like women. So when they get victimized or exploited its because other people made a bad decision, usually while sober, not them. Other people get drunk specifically to give themselves an excuse to make bad decisions, and don't need to be as drunk to carry through with them as the people they then target. The inequality exists in the fundamental reasons people get drunk in the first place, and in light of the gravity of the consequences. The best way to combat this is to change the drinking culture and get people to think with their brains and not their dicks.

Besides, the best sex organ in the body is your brain. I don't see why you would want to compromise it with alcohol-- hell, Shakespear was making jokes about drunk dicks not preforming properly way back in his day.

I fundamentally disagree with this view of things. Men and women both go to certain clubs looking for sex, there is nothing wrong or predatory about going to a club with this intention so long as you aren't consciously manipulating the person to get the answer you want. You're once again making the mistake of looking at men as predators and women as prey and that stigmatizes sex and thus leads to greater frustration on both sides which tends to create social problems.

Eh, what the hell. Aether you are a newbie, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt; but I really do have to keep this short and to the point. That last post was actually longer than I intended. See what I mean about simplifying my life? These arguments used to be a real time waster for me.

Alcohol is a common element of the situations, but it does not mean that alcohol influences the two situations in the same way. It does not necessarily form a logical analogy because of its presence. As I said, the drunk driver can make a choice before getting drunk (as do people seeking sex with alcohol), and so society is holding them liable for the choice they made at the time of being sober to take no precautions. Whereas the person who goes to have a drink in a social context has no control over other people before, during, or after drinking. There is also a cultural belief system surrounding alcohol in general that causes widespread harm in our society that we want to discourage to decrease harm. Harm reduction is another purpose of the law, and the biggest one that influences drunk driving laws. So sometimes the law must take that into consideration, and that can mean that while impaired judgement is understandable in one set of circumstances, it is the entire reason another situation is dangerous. Utilitarian logic, you understand?

Also, you phrased something wrong there. "...it's the act of having sex while drunk which is being argued as a crime." This is wrong, although I think a product of typing error rather than understanding. It is the act of having non-consensual sex that is a crime, and the presence of alcohol that is argued (well, really its just a fact) that makes consent impossible past a certain point of inebriation.

The issue is that nobody has yet defined this point to anybodies satisfaction thus leaving us with a law that makes the only winning move not to play at all. Drunken sex isn't and shouldn't be something I can make a WarGames reference about.

[TheHammer]

The issue is that nobody has yet defined this point to anybodies satisfaction thus leaving us with a law that makes the only winning move not to play at all. Drunken sex isn't and shouldn't be something I can make a WarGames reference about.

Actually the "winning move" would seem to be to have drunken sex, then claim you were drunk, that your consent was thus invalid, and therefore accuse other person of rape. All in a preemptive strike before they have the chance to do the same to you. Better safe than sorry right? Perhaps that's the new definition of "Safe sex". The sad fucking state of affairs in a world where you can retroactively revoke consent rather than own up to choices made while drinking.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

There's another disturbing aspect of expanding the legal gray area that hasn't been touched on, and it has to do with human nature. Namely, a person with strong character, even if they felt taken advantage of, would probably not press a charge that would ruin someone's life and career with prison time and a lifetime RSO label unless they were absolutely sure that a purposeful rape occurred. Since the memory of an actual victim would be hazy while that of a liar would not, we should expect that most accusations that fall within the gray area to be made by vindictive people against the innocent. Instead of protecting victims, expanding the definition of sexual assault in this way would likely give a weapon to predatory people and create victims who have no recourse because they've been bludgeoned with the legal system itself. Since this situation is unlikely to actually materialize in our society, it is instead invoked by conservatives as a bogeyman to turn the mainstream against the sexual assault awareness movement, and they have the statements of thousands of well-intentioned supporters to back it up. That's why it's so frustrating when the anti-drunk hookup folks continue to misconceptualize and falsely accuse large swaths of the population. I know you mean well, but you're doing real damage to the movement by giving ammo to the Bill O's and Limbaugh's of the world.

[Thanas]

we should expect that most accusations that fall within the gray area to be made by vindictive people against the innocent.

We should really not, as the same conditions apply to all sexual assault cases where this is not true either.

[Kon_El]

No. It does not. A great deal of tort and criminal law has to do with an actual harm being done. You cannot rape someone without harming them, and the existence of that harm depends on the other person's perception and personal experience. It is just on a delay, due to chemically induced temporary brain damage to the prefrontal cortex. Once the act is done, you have either raped them or have not. But neither of you know about it until the next day

Retroactive consent is a terrible idea and without it all sex that involves drinking is rape under this definition. People do things while stone cold sober that they regret later all the time. Allowing people to judge what they would or would not have done after the fact because there was alcohol involved is no basis for legal action. Especially with something a complex as human sexual interaction. If someone was sober enough to know where they were and who they were with it isn't rape.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

we should expect that most accusations that fall within the gray area to be made by vindictive people against the innocent.

We should really not, as the same conditions apply to all sexual assault cases where this is not true either.

Hazy memory leading to reluctance to press charges applies to all sexual assault cases?

[Thanas]

Shock and trauma and drugs are prevalent at most rape cases. But what I really take issue with is that only because strong characters press charges we should assume the majority of victims are just lying.

[Beowulf]

There really aren't. Rape is statistically a massively one sided issue.

So you're claiming that men are raped (have non-consensual sex) at a massively low rate than women?

[Korto]

I do wonder about the reporting rate for male victim rape. The female reporting rate is supposed to be pretty bad, and I see no reason why the male rate should be any better, and I personally feel (on a gut-instinct level, no actual useful facts) that it would be significantly worse. Men aren't supposed to be the victims of rape, and the humiliation of it would I would think make them extremely reluctant to report.

I would like to put up for consideration the offense of "Sexual Predation". This would be where it can't be shown that it was actually rape (normally, it can't be shown beyond reasonable doubt that consent was not given), but where it's believed that one side took advantage of a power imbalance in an unconscionable way. Possibly this would be a civil offence, requiring only balance of probabilities, but then it would obviously require far lighter sentences.

Secondly, I would suggest any laws about inebriation and rape incorporate a form of "Romeo and Juliet" exemption.

Using the same blood alcohol limit as for driving may look attractive, but driving and consenting are two very different tasks. One requires body coordination and reaction speed, the other, not really a major part.

Personally, though, I would be leery of any law where the difference between whether a crime was committed or not was whether a person was brought up to take responsibility for their own choices, even when they regretted them after, or someone for whom it was always someones else's fault whenever something didn't go as desired.

[Vendetta]

There really aren't. Rape is statistically a massively one sided issue.

So you're claiming that men are raped (have non-consensual sex) at a massively low rate than women?

According to the CDC, yes. Rates of rape or attempted rape are one in five for women, one in 21 for men.

Reporting rates are worse among men, but not as much as four times (reporting of male on male rape is 1 in 10, reporting of male on female rape is 1 in 7).

So yes, this is a significantly one sided issue where gender is concerned.

[Patroklos]

I hope you are not referencing the same statistic that the Administration is, because that statistic does not say that in any way, shape or form as the Slate article referenced earlier in the thread laid bare.

I suggest you unpack this far more expansive, recent and relevant report from the DOJ released days ago before you try and defend the above statistic:

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317

BLUF: The DOJ puts the incidence at .61% for college women (.76% for none college). I imagine some of the difference is due to the DOJ not shamelessly conflating rape and sexual assault as you just did above.

That's still whatever% too many, but surely the orders of magnitude in difference is not lost on you? Surely the negative effect of the dishonesty in the statistic you just quoted on activism isn't lost on you?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well, I've been intoxicated on a number of occasions and had relations with a woman, and regretted it the next day. Several were of the variety I adamantly wouldn't want to be involved with while sober. Therefore, I've been raped dozens of times, so just jack your figures up accordingly.

More seriously:

Retroactive consent is a terrible idea and without it all sex that involves drinking is rape under this definition.

You should probably read the rest of Alyrium's post and the rest of the thread before commenting. Alyrium has been very, VERY explicit that he is NOT advocating retroactive consent. The fact that you immediately start off by muttering about it shows that you have not been following the argument closely enough to contribute to it effectively. Further, Alyrium also never said that all sex that involves drinking is rape. He merely argues that all sex that involves drinking is AT RISK behavior with respect to rape. These are very different statements.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Shock and trauma and drugs are prevalent at most rape cases. But what I really take issue with is that only because strong characters press charges we should assume the majority of victims are just lying.

Only charges within the new gray area that some are proposing we create. I wasn't talking about rape and assault cases under existing law.

[AMX]

You'd really need to ask somebody who has extensive experience with drinking and interacting with drunken people.
From my POV, I can tell that there is both a "too drunk to consent" and a "not entirely sober, but still able to consent."
But I don't have the background to define a strict line between the two.

Then you're clearly unqualified to represent your side of this debate and should concede. If you can't define where your argument starts and mine ends, you can't really have a proper debate.

No.
My position is that there is a line beyond which somebody cannot give meaningful consent, even if they still manage to say something resembling "yes."
The "yes means yes" crap spouted by Hammer and Frank denies that.

This argument does not require an exact definition of where the line is.

That'd be the "fair standard" I referred to above.
Needs to offer enough protection without being unduly restrictive, and shouldn't leave a significant grey area.
You're not going to get that from me, for obvious reasons.
But anyway, "best effort" away...

At least you're trying, better than most here have done.

That's obviously over the line.

Agreed.

Seems suspicious. Hands off.

I stand by taking full responsibility for your actions at this stage. I've been there more times than I can count and even in this state I've still been able to deal with cops/bylaw officers when required and have never been fined or arrested at this state of intoxication. Anecdotal I know, but my experience with drink as well as the experience of my friends has been that you're still expected to be in control at this point or pull back on the drink enough to avoid this state.

Maybe I'm being a bit too careful here, but given how variable the effects of alcohol appear to be, I wouldn't want to risk somebody getting hurt just because the symptoms set in unusually late for them.

Should be fine, although you may want to get some input from people who have experience with that level of intoxication.

I've been to all three of these states, only in the last would I have felt raped. I've spoken to men and women, straight and gay and trans, in my social circle and they agree that if you have sex while mobile and able to understand where you are and who you're with you need to own that choice.

"Able to understand" is the sticking point here - that's an awfully tricky thing to determine just from passive observation, so you pretty much have to rely on other symptoms.
Since they may not map all that well, it's only prudent to err on the side of caution.

Checking the "Progressive effects of alcohol" table on wikipedia, "Impaired Reasoning" seems significant.
Apparently that typically comes with Disinhibition and Extroversion.
And it sits right between "stumbling with slurred speech" and what could be summed up as "mildly tipsy and giggly."

I'm afraid I'll have to call this our grey area.

I disagree that there should be a grey area in a crime so damning as rape. Do better.

Crud, I knew that came out wrong.
What I meant is that this is as close as I can narrow it down - the impairment is relevant, but the symptoms seem to vague to reliably identify.
And presumably both are progressive conditions that don't correspond reliably to each other.

But I do have to say that there should be some grey area, that allows you to proceed (or not) based on other information - if you already know the person you're dealing with remains perfectly reasonable and aware even when they appear fall-down drunk, that's a different situation than if it were some stranger you just met.

One person making a mistake does not give somebody else carte blanche to exploit that.

It's not exploitation if she came to bed willingly.

How "willing" can it be if she's not able to understand what she's doing?

That's a false dilemma - both have a responsibility for their actions.

Then how can one of them be raped and the other be a rapist? If one can use I was too drunk to consent as a defense the other can use I wad too drunk to know she was drunk and invalidate the crime. If that is the case, why have the law at all?

That's where prior consent comes in - if one person was already intent on having sex before they started drinking, they only got what they were looking for, and were thus not raped.
If the other person only got talked into fucking while already severely inebriated, they never gave meaningful consent, making it rape.
So you end up with only one person being raped, even if the actual act happens while both are equally drunk.

And we're back to the part where one person's mistakes do not absolve somebody else of guilt if he* takes advantage of them.
*continuing your example

You've yet to define what taking advantage even is.

That's a generic "taking advantage of" - whether you're fucking somebody who's too drunk to consent, or talking somebody into a ridiculously unfair business deal that they would never fall for if they were sober, or whatever - if you are exploiting their impaired mental state to get an advantage for yourself, it's wrong.

[TheHammer]

Well, I've been intoxicated on a number of occasions and had relations with a woman, and regretted it the next day. Several were of the variety I adamantly wouldn't want to be involved with while sober. Therefore, I've been raped dozens of times, so just jack your figures up accordingly.

More seriously:

Retroactive consent is a terrible idea and without it all sex that involves drinking is rape under this definition.

You should probably read the rest of Alyrium's post and the rest of the thread before commenting. Alyrium has been very, VERY explicit that he is NOT advocating retroactive consent. The fact that you immediately start off by muttering about it shows that you have not been following the argument closely enough to contribute to it effectively. Further, Alyrium also never said that all sex that involves drinking is rape. He merely argues that all sex that involves drinking is AT RISK behavior with respect to rape. These are very different statements.

No. Because you are too fucking lazy to read other people's posts. I have said repeatedly in this thread that it is only rape if the other person--namely you in this case--is not OK with what happened afterward. Original consent is non-valid. If the person is drunk, the answer to the question of consent is simply "unknown". Neither given nor refused. Consent is given or refused later. You rather obviously retroactively consented to having sex with your wife.

According to Alyrium, after a drunken sexual encounter, consent is subject to the whims of the participants after the fact where they can "retroactively consent", or "retroactively not consent" once sober. His statement that consent is simply an "unknown" under those circumstances, essentially means that you are sexually gambling based on the odds of someone "consenting vs non consenting" later and is wholly unacceptable and unworkable for the vast majority of the population.

Consent is either given or its not. If you don't know if you have consent, then you don't have consent. Logically speaking, if we consider that "sex without first obtaining consent = rape", and that by Alyrium's stance consent cannot be given until after the fact, then he is in fact arguing that all drunken sex is defacto rape at the time it occurs.

Kon El is correct in recognizing why this notion of retroactive anything involving consent is a fucking terrible idea if we are interested in coming up with just system for determining when a crime has actually occurred and when it has not. People have gotten drunk and had sex for centuries, to the pleasure of the vast majority of those involved. Outlawing, or defacto criminalizing as some of the more asinine suggestions would do, is not a desired outcome.

Therefore a reasonable standard for valid consent while under the influence of alcohol, preferably one that would also apply to other mind altering substances, should be established. It should in the best way possible account for different tolerances people hold, and be such that a "reasonable person" could be expected to adhere to and rely upon.

[Formless]

Jub, how about you stop replying to me? You are doing a horrible job at it, and I already said that I'm not interested in getting sucked into a lengthy argument like you are looking for. Its like, no one can enter this thread without getting jumped on by your crusader ass, even posts which are specifically STATE that. That's highly obnoxious. Aether is the only person I am interested in responding to, and the only reason I'm still visiting this thread. I don't feel like reading all the posts you have made to everyone else, which is pretty much what it would take to argue with you at this point. I don't care what your input is, since its been submitted without regard to context (and frankly without any evidence I've seen yet; though again I'm just skimming here). The question was ABOUT predation/exploitation and its relationship to alcohol and impairment; NOT mutual consent, you fucking skunkrocket. You are fishing for herrings and expecting I'll bite. If you will excuse the mixed metaphor there.

“One day you'll discover that the opinions of worthless people are worthless.”
― Piers Anthony, A Spell for Chameleon

[Vendetta]

BLUF: The DOJ puts the incidence at .61% for college women (.76% for none college). I imagine some of the difference is due to the DOJ not shamelessly conflating rape and sexual assault as you just did above.

Actually, reading their methodology, they specifically do. The studies you posted all come from the National Crime Victim Survey, which includes (per the description of it in PDF of the first item linked)

The NCVS
definition is shaped from a criminal justice perspective
and includes threatened, attempted, and completed
rape and sexual assault against males and females

It however does not include

incidents
in which the victim was unable to provide consent due
to drug or alcohol use; forced to penetrate another
person; or coerced to engage in sexual contact (including
nonphysical pressure to engage in sex) unwanted sexual
contact (including forcible kissing, fondling, or grabbing);
and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences that do not
involve physical contact.

(PS: It also supports my original argument that rape is less prevelant among men, and to a greater degree, 83% of in-college and 96% of out-of-college rapes among 18-24 year olds included in the NVCS were of women)

So y'know, thanks for making my point even stronger.

[Patroklos]

Actually, reading their methodology, they specifically do. The studies you posted all come from the National Crime Victim Survey, which includes (per the description of it in PDF of the first item linked)

So they do, which makes the false 1 and 5 claim concerning the statistics you referenced that much more an egregious lie. Remember in your post you said "rape and attempted rape" regarding the 20% claim (so not sexual assault, that's not the same thing) when in reality the original lie was that the 1 in 5 included rape and sexual assault.

At some point this referenced statistic changed from raped or assaulted to just raped. Apparently the first gross abuse of the data wasn't good enough and certain parties had to double the stakes.

(PS: It also supports my original argument that rape is less prevelant among men, and to a greater degree, 83% of in-college and 96% of out-of-college rapes among 18-24 year olds included in the NVCS were of women)

So y'know, thanks for making my point even stronger.

I wasn't refuting your point, I was calling you out for using BS statistics (or rather bogus claims about a statistic) in support of it.

[Phillip Hone]

Shock and trauma and drugs are prevalent at most rape cases. But what I really take issue with is that only because strong characters press charges we should assume the majority of victims are just lying.

Only charges within the new gray area that some are proposing we create. I wasn't talking about rape and assault cases under existing law.

I know that's what you're saying, but by that reasoning, that stronger willed people who want to harm someone are more likely to press charges, the same conclusion could be made for other rape charges. And what I've just described is an extremely prevalent opinion of most rape charges, especially amongst men.

To be clear, I'm not insinuating that you believe rape charges in general are the victim just lying.

[TimothyC]

(PS: It also supports my original argument that rape is less prevelant among men, and to a greater degree, 83% of in-college and 96% of out-of-college rapes among 18-24 year olds included in the NVCS were of women)

When

forced to penetrate another person;

is not included in rape stats, it excludes almost all male victims (when rape is defined as non-consensual sex).
Source: Tables 2.1 and 2.2: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/p ... 2010-a.pdf

When you include all types, the 12 month prevalence data shows that men and women are assaulted at about equal rates (~1.1%/year).

[Vendetta]

(PS: It also supports my original argument that rape is less prevelant among men, and to a greater degree, 83% of in-college and 96% of out-of-college rapes among 18-24 year olds included in the NVCS were of women)

When

forced to penetrate another person;

is not included in rape stats, it excludes almost all male victims (when rape is defined as non-consensual sex).
Source: Tables 2.1 and 2.2: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/p ... 2010-a.pdf

When you include all types, the 12 month prevalence data shows that men and women are assaulted at about equal rates (~1.1%/year).

And yet the same thing you just linked to is the source of the original one in five statistic. (remember that the NCVS specifically excludes rape where drugs or alcohol were a factor, and is looking at a specific period of time (per year, 1995-2013), whereas this survey includes those things and is asking a different question (cumulative within entire lifetime))

One statistic does not actually refute the other because they cover different periods of time.

Specifically page 11:

Nearly 1 in 5 women (18.3%) and
1 in 71 men (1.4%) in the United
States have been raped at some
time in their lives, including
completed forced penetration,
attempted forced penetration,
or alcohol/drug facilitated
completed penetration.

and on page 12 for the statistic for made to penetrate someone else:

Approximately 1 in 21 men
(4.8%) reported that they were
made to penetrate someone else
during their lifetime; most men
who were made to penetrate
someone else reported that
the perpetrator was either an
intimate partner (44.8%) or an
acquaintance (44.7%).

Even adding those two together it's still roughly a four to one differential rate of occurrance over the lifetime.

[TimothyC]

Even adding those two together it's still roughly a four to one differential rate of occurrence over the lifetime.

Your original quote was

Rape is statistically a massively one sided issue.

Now, based on the current (2010-2011) statistics, many more women have been raped than men over their lifetime. However, the statistics also show that right now, the rates at which men and women are being raped are about equal. It is from this second statistic that I (and presumably others in this thread) draw objections to your statement. What I am most interested in is how we get from equal yearly rates of rape to such a large difference in the lifetime rates.

[Simon_Jester]

It could be that men are only likely to be targeted, or are only vulnerable to coercion, for a short window (say, ten years), whereas women are likely targets for sexual assault or rape for a longer window (say, twenty or thirty years)*
___________________________

*Yes, there are individual cases of sexual assaults committed against girls and women of all ages; I'm just picking an arbitrary number to communicate the idea.