UVA and the alleged frat rape - Rolling Stone backpedals

[MisterCreosote]

I'd bet good money I could write a properly sourced and properly edited story that shows without a doubt that rape on college campuses is a huge problem.

Define "huge." Of course it's a huge problem if by "huge problem" you mean "it's an awful thing and any number other than zero cannot be tolerated." If, however, you mean "it happens very, very frequently," well then I might take the other side of your bet.

Let's assume it's the latter, and I am going to take the other side. We would, of course, have to hammer out some details. When you say "rape," do you mean the general legal definition (i.e., forcible sexual intercourse)? If so, wouldn't it worry you, with regards to your bet, that per the FBI this country's rape rate has been declining for about 20 years and is approaching 40-year lows?

When I say "rape," I mean "sexual assault" of all kinds. I know the two aren't synonymous, so I'll clarify from now on.

When communicating to people about risk, or risky behavior, in a magazine article or any other form of communication, the key is to remember that the people at actual risk are much more interested in the numerator than the denominator.

Also, rape, like other crimes such as robbery or murder, is a crime of proximity and opportunity. Being on a college campus provides both of those to would-be rapists much more than most places. Just like poverty-stricken areas provide it for other crimes.

 

[MisterCreosote]

Erdely doesn't find gang rape as an initiation into urban street gangs, she finds it in an elite, white, Southern fraternity.

She doesn't find rampant sexual assault in Hollywood, she finds it in the U.S. Military.

She doesn't find homophobia in African-American communities, she finds it in a lily white, and conservative town.

Is there any doubt she targets American institutions? Is there any doubt she is practicing "impact journalism"? Is there any doubt she finds what she wants to find?

If she found it and documented and reported it properly, it wouldn't matter where she looked for it.

Thus rears the ugly head of shirtty, irresponsible journalism.

 

[doctorquant]

I'd bet good money I could write a properly sourced and properly edited story that shows without a doubt that rape on college campuses is a huge problem.

Define "huge." Of course it's a huge problem if by "huge problem" you mean "it's an awful thing and any number other than zero cannot be tolerated." If, however, you mean "it happens very, very frequently," well then I might take the other side of your bet.

Let's assume it's the latter, and I am going to take the other side. We would, of course, have to hammer out some details. When you say "rape," do you mean the general legal definition (i.e., forcible sexual intercourse)? If so, wouldn't it worry you, with regards to your bet, that per the FBI this country's rape rate has been declining for about 20 years and is approaching 40-year lows?

When I say "rape," I mean "sexual assault" of all kinds. I know the two aren't synonymous, so I'll clarify from now on.

When communicating to people about risk, or risky behavior, in a magazine article or any other form of communication, the key is to remember that the people at actual risk are much more interested in the numerator than the denominator.

Also, rape, like other crimes such as robbery or murder, is a crime of proximity and opportunity. Being on a college campus provides both of those to would-be rapists much more than most places. Just like poverty-stricken areas provide it for other crimes.

Because it's overly wordy, let's just use "rape" as a catch-all for "sexual assault." And, frankly, I would still be inclined to take the other side of your bet. I think it would be very, very difficult to make a definitive (as you say "without a doubt") case that it's a huge problem (in the numerical sense). I have long been very skeptical of these "one-in-five" or "one-in-three" numbers that are proffered, because they simply don't make sense (either logically or statistically). The only way they can even conceivably be made to work is to: 1) expand the definition of rape to the point that the term is almost meaningless; and 2) assume that college women today are substantially more averse to actually reporting it than they were 10, 20, even 30 years ago.

As regards the latter, I thought this guy made a pretty good point:

... if that is true, if the stigma against reporting sexual assaults is worse today than it was 40, 50, or 100 years ago, could there be a bigger indictment of the feminist project? The women's-studies programs, the support groups and crisis centers, the public-education and sensitivity-training programs, movies like The Burning Bed and The Accused, the Lorena Bobbitt apologias and all those nights taken back: and women are now more scared to report being sexually assaulted? If that's true, pack it up, ladies/womyn, and call it a day. You are complete and total failures. Collect your gold watches (or hemp tote bags) and walk off the public stage as we politely golf-clap your exit.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394111/uva-gang-rape-wasnt-jonah-goldberg/page/0/1

 

[Songbird]

I'd bet good money I could write a properly sourced and properly edited story that shows without a doubt that rape on college campuses is a huge problem.

Define "huge." Of course it's a huge problem if by "huge problem" you mean "it's an awful thing and any number other than zero cannot be tolerated." If, however, you mean "it happens very, very frequently," well then I might take the other side of your bet.

Let's assume it's the latter, and I am going to take the other side. We would, of course, have to hammer out some details. When you say "rape," do you mean the general legal definition (i.e., forcible sexual intercourse)? If so, wouldn't it worry you, with regards to your bet, that per the FBI this country's rape rate has been declining for about 20 years and is approaching 40-year lows?

When I say "rape," I mean "sexual assault" of all kinds. I know the two aren't synonymous, so I'll clarify from now on.

When communicating to people about risk, or risky behavior, in a magazine article or any other form of communication, the key is to remember that the people at actual risk are much more interested in the numerator than the denominator.

Also, rape, like other crimes such as robbery or murder, is a crime of proximity and opportunity. Being on a college campus provides both of those to would-be rapists much more than most places. Just like poverty-stricken areas provide it for other crimes.

Because it's overly wordy, let's just use "rape" as a catch-all for "sexual assault." And, frankly, I would still be inclined to take the other side of your bet. I think it would be very, very difficult to make a definitive (as you say "without a doubt") case that it's a huge problem (in the numerical sense). I have long been very skeptical of these "one-in-five" or "one-in-three" numbers that are proffered, because they simply don't make sense (either logically or statistically). The only way they can even conceivably be made to work is to: 1) expand the definition of rape to the point that the term is almost meaningless; and 2) assume that college women today are substantially more averse to actually reporting it than they were 10, 20, even 30 years ago.

As regards the latter, I thought this guy made a pretty good point:

... if that is true, if the stigma against reporting sexual assaults is worse today than it was 40, 50, or 100 years ago, could there be a bigger indictment of the feminist project? The women's-studies programs, the support groups and crisis centers, the public-education and sensitivity-training programs, movies like The Burning Bed and The Accused, the Lorena Bobbitt apologias and all those nights taken back: and women are now more scared to report being sexually assaulted? If that's true, pack it up, ladies/womyn, and call it a day. You are complete and total failures. Collect your gold watches (or hemp tote bags) and walk off the public stage as we politely golf-clap your exit.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394111/uva-gang-rape-wasnt-jonah-goldberg/page/0/1

If womyn had balls he'd be punching them. He's Willie Wonka 2.0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yT1GHoFiAw

 

[MisterCreosote]

Because it's overly wordy, let's just use "rape" as a catch-all for "sexual assault." And, frankly, I would still be inclined to take the other side of your bet. I think it would be very, very difficult to make a definitive (as you say "without a doubt") case that it's a huge problem (in the numerical sense). I have long been very skeptical of these "one-in-five" or "one-in-three" numbers that are proffered, because they simply don't make sense (either logically or statistically). The only way they can even conceivably be made to work is to: 1) expand the definition of rape to the point that the term is almost meaningless; and 2) assume that college women today are substantially more averse to actually reporting it than they were 10, 20, even 30 years ago.

You're getting too hung up on the "1 in 5" number. I mean, if it were 1 in 20, or 1 in 50, or 1 in 500, would that make it OK? That's still a lot of sexual assault. Besides, I'm pretty sure that "1 in 5" number came from a survey, and is not based on any hard, consistent data.

What is, however, pretty well documented and provable is that rape is pretty drastically underreported. And, that a sizable majority of rape victims are under the age of 24. That, in and of itself, constitutes a major problem regardless of the other "stats" that make for better headlines.

 

[PW2]

Because it's overly wordy, let's just use "rape" as a catch-all for "sexual assault." And, frankly, I would still be inclined to take the other side of your bet. I think it would be very, very difficult to make a definitive (as you say "without a doubt") case that it's a huge problem (in the numerical sense). I have long been very skeptical of these "one-in-five" or "one-in-three" numbers that are proffered, because they simply don't make sense (either logically or statistically). The only way they can even conceivably be made to work is to: 1) expand the definition of rape to the point that the term is almost meaningless; and 2) assume that college women today are substantially more averse to actually reporting it than they were 10, 20, even 30 years ago.

You're getting too hung up on the "1 in 5" number. I mean, if it were 1 in 20, or 1 in 50, or 1 in 500, would that make it OK? That's still a lot of sexual assault.

If the number's not important, why does the advocacy movement constantly refer to it?

 

[PW2]

One of the liberal commentariat sites last year caught a huge amount of flak, if I recall, for running a column urging college women to stop getting black-out wasted and making themselves sitting rape targets. Of course, the Jezebels of the world - as well as more mainstream, measured sites - went nuclear about it and said that it was victim-blaming, taking the onus off of men to stop raping, etc., etc.

What utter claptrap. I would wager that 90 percent or more of alleged college rapes and/or sexual assaults take place when the women is intoxicated. Some preventative measures would seem to be reasonable. Instead, Sabrina Erdely and Rolling Stone tell us that rapes occur in pre-meditated fashion by marauding gangs of fratbros who force themselves upon stone-cold sober freshman goody-goodies.

What a disservice. The movement is practically enabling rapists with some of their dogma.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

Because it's overly wordy, let's just use "rape" as a catch-all for "sexual assault." And, frankly, I would still be inclined to take the other side of your bet. I think it would be very, very difficult to make a definitive (as you say "without a doubt") case that it's a huge problem (in the numerical sense). I have long been very skeptical of these "one-in-five" or "one-in-three" numbers that are proffered, because they simply don't make sense (either logically or statistically). The only way they can even conceivably be made to work is to: 1) expand the definition of rape to the point that the term is almost meaningless; and 2) assume that college women today are substantially more averse to actually reporting it than they were 10, 20, even 30 years ago.

You're getting too hung up on the "1 in 5" number. I mean, if it were 1 in 20, or 1 in 50, or 1 in 500, would that make it OK? That's still a lot of sexual assault.

If the number's not important, why does the advocacy movement constantly refer to it?

I think you answered your own question.

 

[MisterCreosote]

One of the liberal commentariat sites last year caught a huge amount of flak, if I recall, for running a column urging college women to stop getting black-out wasted and making themselves sitting rape targets. Of course, the Jezebels of the world - as well as more mainstream, measured sites - went nuclear about it and said that it was victim-blaming, taking the onus off of men to stop raping, etc., etc.

What utter claptrap. I would wager that 90 percent or more of alleged college rapes and/or sexual assaults take place when the women is intoxicated. Some preventative measures would seem to be reasonable.

I'm not going to argue the journalistic aspect of your post, but the quoted part is such Stephen A. Smith, elements-of-provocation, hot-take bullshirt. Women should be allowed to go out and get drunk, wearing whatever they want, without having to worry about some meathead raping them.

 

[Double Down]

Erik Wemple just took a sledgehammer to Will Dana's credibility.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/12/08/rolling-stone-managing-editor-in-2006-well-write-what-we-believe/

 

[PW2]

One of the liberal commentariat sites last year caught a huge amount of flak, if I recall, for running a column urging college women to stop getting black-out wasted and making themselves sitting rape targets. Of course, the Jezebels of the world - as well as more mainstream, measured sites - went nuclear about it and said that it was victim-blaming, taking the onus off of men to stop raping, etc., etc.

What utter claptrap. I would wager that 90 percent or more of alleged college rapes and/or sexual assaults take place when the women is intoxicated. Some preventative measures would seem to be reasonable.

I'm not going to argue the journalistic aspect of your post, but the quoted part is such Stephen A. Smith, elements-of-provocation, hot-take bullshirt. Women should be allowed to go out and get drunk, wearing whatever they want, without having to worry about some meathead raping them.

You're right. They should. And I should be able to drive around at 2 a.m. on New Year's Eve all I want without worrying about getting slammed by a drunk driver. But I won't.

 

[MisterCreosote]

And I should be able to drive around at 2 a.m. on New Year's Eve all I want without worrying about getting slammed by a drunk driver. But I won't.

If only there were an attempt at solving the drunk driving problem by punishing the drunk drivers instead of mandating that the sober people drive more carefully.