So, if 29% of rape is "acquaintance rape" that means that according to Gbaji's logic, over 100,000 women just "made a bad choice."
You're playing semantic games and claiming that every rape that occurs by someone who is an acquaintance is the same as "date rape". Lots of men abuse their wives/girlfriends (and vice versa, but let's ignore that for right now). You cannot assume that every woman raped by an acquaintance was the victim of "date rape", or that they recieved no bruises or beatings in the process of being raped by someone they knew.
By "date rape", I'm talking about when someone has sex with someone they know, shows no physical signs of trauma at all, and claims they didn't consent to the sex. Now, maybe they were forced, and maybe not. My point is that there's no way to possibly know. Are you seriously trying to argue that every single rape by an acquaintance includes no violence? If not, then your point and your statistic is totally irrelevant to what I'm trying to say.
Nice little bit of rhetoric to imply that I don't care about 100,000 raped women. Totally false of course. First off the number of "date rapes" is lower then that, and my opinion is that it's *not* rape at all. If you physically have a choice to avoid sex and don't do it, then by definition it's consentual. You keep dragging in all these other scenarios like a women held at knifepoint. If that's the case, then she *doesn't* have a choice. Not a reasonable one at least. But the woman given the choice of walking him versus having sex does. And that's the situations that I'm talking about. My point is that that's what distiguishes rape from date rape in the first place. That's what I have a problem with. Our laws have changed such that "coersion" is incredibly wide in the legal context. To me, unless there is physical violence, or the direct threat of physical violence, then it's not rape.
53% of women who are raped have no other injuries (i.e. bruises, or that all-important "sign of a struggle") that means that 187,975 women would not be able to "prove" rape. Nearly 200,000 rapists would walk free if Gbaji had his way.
Um. Not to be obvious or anything, but you are totally misreading the stastics. 53% of women have no "other injuries", then that from the rape. It's not saying that 53% have "no injuries". What that means is that 47% of women who are raped are injuried in a way other then the rape itself (beaten, stabbed, cut, dragged behind a car, whatever). That statistic says nothing about how many women in total were injured. We can assume that it's *more* then 47% though, right?
I find it really amusing that you took this number and twisted it around, but totally missed the one in the same quote that said that 75% of women required medical care. Um... Doesn't that imply that the rate of injuries from rape is much higher then you're trying to say?
the FBI has been saying since 1991 that the annual rate for the false reporting of forcible sexual assault across the country has been a consistent 8 percent (through 1995, the most recent year available) ... The agency's guidelines define a report as false when an investigation determines that no offense occurred. A complainant's failure or refusal to cooperate in the investigation does not, by itself, lead to a finding of false report.
Assuming that the FBIs statistic is the closest to being accurate as we are going to come, then that means 28,373 men are falsely accused.
Again with the horrible statistical analysis for two reasons:
1. That's the number that were discovered to be false after police investigation. That does not include any where the victim did not follow up, or dropped the charges herself, etc. I understand that we can't assume anything about those because many women are afraid to follow up with a rape case, but we're excluding *all* of them. This is the number we can "prove" were false claims. Some percentage of the remainder are going to be false as well, but were never investigated for one reason or another.
2. Also. That's specificly the statistics of false accusations in cases of "forcible sexual assault". Many states have separate rules for date rape. Remember, that the whole point of date rape is that you weren't forcibly assaulted, but were talked into having sex, or coerced in a manner other then physically. Thus, that statistic completely misses the date rape phenomenon.
I really think you keep automatically translating "date rape" into "rape", and swapping definitions willy-nilly. They really are two different things. I'm talking about the trend that started in the mid 90s (which might explain why these statistics don't account for them), in which states would charge rape in cases where there wasn't even an allegation of force of any kind. That's what date rape is. It's not someone on a date being raped. It's someone charging rape because they had sex but didn't want to, but they weren't physically forced to (usually there's some psychological pressure or something claimed).
Let's see...187,975 actual rapists walking free if Gabji's criteria were adopted by law enforcement, or 28,373 men whose lives are inconvenienced by a miscarriage of justice. Looks like a gimme to me.
Where did you get that number?
Ok. Follow along with me very very slowly...
I'm talking about situations where the woman was *not* raped. Get it? So we're not talking about any "actual rapists" walking around free. The cases I'm talking about are *not* guys running around holding women at knifepoint and raping them. That's rape. I'm talking about the cases where there's not even an allegation of physical force being used, and the "threats" are so vague and unprovable that there's no possible way to determine if a rape actually occured.
How many times do I have to keep explaining the defintion? Women who are most victimized would not be negatively affected at all, and might actually gain greater protection if we focused our efforts on the violent rape cases instead of one's like in the OP. I'm sorry, but if you'd rather have sex with someone then walk home, then it's not even in the same ballpark as someone being raped. That's *not* rape IMO. You can say it is, but I'll disagree with you every time.
But the idea of letting potentially 200,000 rapists walk free just because they didn't manage to injure their victim is insupportable. Gbaji needs to be deeply ashamed of himself.
Again. I'm not arguing that we let any rapists "walk free". I'm simply suggesting that if we focused on the violent rapists instead of trying to see if we can get a rape charge against some guy when the only evidence of rape is the womans word, maybe we'll get a lot more results and a lot fewer false charges.
I'm not ashamed. I'm disgusted at women who use rape in such a cavalier way. Rape is the absolute worse thing a man can do to a woman. Far worse then making her walk home by herself. A woman who's actually been raped would be disgusted by someone claiming rape in that case. I don't argue this point because I'm an uncaring male who feels women shouldn't bitch about stuff like that. I argue this because I do care. A lot.
When you've been beaten half to death and are held with a gun to your head while two guys drag your screaming girlfriend into a room and take turns with her, you can tell me I should be ashamed about my feelings about rape. I've seen it first hand. I can still remember the look on her face. The despair. The pain. That is rape. So excuse me if I don't place the same freaking weight on a situation where the woman made a choice between walking home and having sex with her date and feels that it was an unfair situation to be put in. I'm sorry, but I don't shed a lot of tears for someone in that situation. She chose to go out with that guy. She chose to get into a car with him. She chose to go off alone with him without any other friends around. And she even chose to have sex rather then extricate herself from the situation on her own.
That's not rape. That's a woman not even making the most remote effort to use her brain and stand up for herself. Sorry. That's not even remotely in the same catagory, and I'm disgusted by anyone who tries to argue that it is.