sundin13 said:
I don't think we can really form a number, honestly. I think we would need a lot more data, broken down in a lot more ways to actually get something that is accurate, so if you do want to say a number, you should throw a few asterisks at it to make that clear (and make sure you really lay out what the number means). That said, here are some numbers I think sound accurate: If you are trying to say the lifetime victimization of someone who is born today, I think, considering current crime trends, the number would probably be closer to 1 in 10 (this is how these figures should be discussed imo). |
What is with the "including future victimizations"?
What was wrong with the math of the "someone who is alive today"?
Every 15 years is about 6-7m roughly. Since the numbers are heavily skewed toward ages 6-25, I'd say actually the chances of each individual are around 7-8% This represents making to 25. So actually 1-12
The problem with your math is that you're not accounting for continued birthrate. For everyone alive however, the number is the math I gave you. There is no reason for the 1-7 or 1-8.
One thing that I'm not sure you're understanding is that there is no need for a future victimizations because the age range stays the same, it is a static slice of time. It is like that 81 years we were talking about earlier. You wouldn't add 81 because the birthrate compensates. The math from 1990-2005 did not include future victimizations, and neither did the previous cycle year periods. Therefore, requiring a "future victimization" is like saying the people in the 1990 group include the sexual assaults that happen today.
Now, of course, this all assumes very particular criteria, like I said previously, and leaves out quite a bit.
I do not think we should "use 1-10 moving forward" because as I said earlier, it doesn't include a whole slew of other things that aren't calculated by the DOJ. Things like molestation via insertion of object, homeless people, too drunk to consent, drugged, manipulated into sex via nonviolent threats, nonviolent forceful coercion, guilt, the list goes on.
This is why the CDC and many many other places conduct their own studies. It is to find things other than what the DOJ looks for. Even the DOJ says that its methodology is limited in scope. It literally says that in the methodological pamphlet. It literally says that it doesn't include several penetrative acts because they aren't done with a penis into a vagina.
I don't think the 1-5 words should be used in any scientific debate, nor do I think 1-10 should be used.
However, we are on a forum, so while I appreciate that some people don't like the 1-5 number, please understand that there are other people who consider being fucked with a object against their will, rape. No need to get sympathetic, or SJW, or any kind of defensive for women. Just appreciate that people out there have different viewpoints. People like me, who know many cases that went unreported, for example. Like FULL FORCEFUL RAPE, never reported. I personally think the numbers are underestimated, but that's just my opinion.
Just as a caveat, I want to repeat that I don't have an SJW bone in my body. I know women are full of shit. I know men are full of shit. I know black people are full of shit, I know white people are full of shit. All humans are equal in how shitty they are. I'm not typing any of this out to like, defend women or anything. I came here to say that in my experience I've met more than my fair share of victims, and I personally would put the number at 1-5. Just by looking at my friends list on facebook. I know it's stupid to use personal data for anything scientific, but this is just a forum discussion. And you'd be surprised how many women you know have been in that situation, but they will never tell a soul.
