Ok if you understand now it isn't a problem.

1. I'm not sure why I would add 81m. I'm counting a number of incidences, comparing it to 160m

(woops, noticed a mistake, I used 160m instead of 147m as was the population for this time period. The actual percentage was 4.7%)

, and taking that percentage and multiplying it without taking into consideration that only in 95 the population was 30m less, and in 1960, there were only 90m women. If I really wanted to do all the math out, I would take my number of incidents and find the new average every 15 years based on population. So, the incidence up to 2005 would be 4.4(4.7)%, and then the incidence at '90 would be 5.6%, and then at 1975 would be 6.4% and so on. 

EXCEPT

I was very specific to use very conservative numbers in my estimation, just to really nail the point in.

I used a 160m population for every cycle. I used even less than the percentage I got for that cycle (4.4% (actually 4.7%)) I used 4%. I did so for no reason other than just to be a complete asshole and make my point using the numbers most generous to my debatee.

Additionally, the prime ages wherein rape takes place is from 6-25 years old. And the highest risk bracket is 14 years old, and this is the lowest that rape has ever been, so I'm working from a huge disadvantage already because the bulk of the numbers are currently already very low. IE; previously every woman alive has been in this age bracket at a higher risk rate than the age bracket today, at its lowest risk rate)

Not only did I make the concession from 4.4% to 4%, but I also left out that rape was on a decline since 1995. Unless we are to assume that rape was never an issue previous to 1995, it would be safe to make the point that it was near the height of what it was in 1995. However, I chose instead to use the average over this current 15 year period. During this period, the DOJ has called the numbers some of the lowest in history. So I'm already using a very generous baseline figure. I even did the math if we went from 2000-2016 (the lowest of all time) and the result was still over 20%. I think I even made it a point to use 350k as my average, even though it was actually 400k, because wartaal was making a stink. Again, because I'm an asshole and like to rub it in people's faces when they talk to me like that.

The actual DOJ census itself also already uses a revictimization rate in coming to their numbers, and also calls the same household over a three year period 6 times. I don't remember if I linked the methodology page but if you search google for ncvs or whatever it's called and "methodology" it tells you exactly what it screens for, and how it helps keep out redundancies.

Other corrections to make:

The DOJ doesn't include other types of rape such as insertions with objects (a form of molestation), the homeless, making other people have sex, nor what's becoming a really hot topic in America, the sex slave trade.

We also aren't sure exactly what the unreported number is, and the DOJ warns against using the unreported number as being accurate. They believe it could be higher. I believe there is also a methodology paper they released that explains why other studies have higher unreported rates, and attributed it to they type of data that was being requested. In short, the DOJ believes that (like I said) it is out to find one number and other studies are meant to find others, for instance like things the DOJ doesn't report: homeless, molestation, insertions, drugged or passed out, coerced, etc etc.

Sexual assault and rape was much higher back in the 50's, 60's, 70's. Talk to people from back then and see what they say. You'd be shocked. My mom is a very open person. She's been almost raped several times. She has no eyebrows because she jumped from a moving vehicle when someone tried to. Or just look at movies where the lead male slaps a woman's ass and is like 'get me a coffee sugar', and is seen like a playboy.

But that's not really a quantifiable argument so I'll leave it at that.

If you really want to find the end-all-be-all number (because I'm tired of this same argument over and over and over and over and over in this thread). Here are the steps to do it.

Take the number of incidences at 2005 covering a 15 year period (7m)
Figure out some kind of metric for changing the incidences aboves (7m) to reflect higher incidences previous to 1990. Maybe use a rolling 5 year average.
Figure out some kind of slope to correct for that number (because it isn't linear to population) Up to you how much to take off. Just don't dip into the 400k territory, when we already know it's higher than that.
Figure out some way to incorporate deaths into that number, both of rape victims and non-rape victims, and the population size.
Find the variation in lifespan during said periods.
Rediscover the correct percentage for every 15 years based on the population size. I'll provide the numbers below:
1990: 112m
1975: 108m
1960: 90m
1945: 70m

My advice?
Probably should just realize that it's either over 20% or very close to it. 

For all you visual learners out there, the math I used looks like this
Key:
R= incidence per average over 1990-2005= 7m
P= population at 2016 =160m
A= average lifespan at 2016= 81y
C= cycle of 15 years using the incidenceR as metric
T= time periods

(A/C)=5.4T where T= R/P

5.4T= R/P + R/P + R/P + R/P + R/P + .4*R/P

The correct formula would look something like:

R= Slope of incidence per cycle = MP
M= median rolling incidence average found for every 15 years. = (picture below)

P= Cycle of time
W= weighted population for time periods =PsubD
D=population at Date

LASTLY

I just want to again point out that despite all the words I wrote above about what the DOJ does and does not track, what numbers could be, etc etc, I used a very conservative formula that actually mistakenly gave nearly 1% away every period over 5 periods, and did not include previous higher incidence rates, or lower population.

If there is still some argument, I have literally no idea what that could possibly be.

No problem man. I understand your compassion, and I do know that there are a lot of people with little willpower and that we must also look out to them and try and help. My only problem is that too much of the numbers are inflated by people lying about assault and rape and others classifying things that aren't even close to that as rape.

And the statistics don't tell that... as I said in Brazil one study showed that 90% of the reports were likely fake (how much of that is trusthworthy or not I dunno) and does that balance, is lower or surpasses the unreported violence we don't know.

Sure things we need to go over the abusive relationships and helping people see they are in one and providing ways for them to leave it.

And another point that make the discussion very bad in Brazil as well is that besides their claims (some are ridiculous, saying like    over 1M women is rapped every year, because they count those cases as rapes) they want more privileges over it and say woman suffer more (it's also ridiculous to compare suffering, since its personnal)... but they refuse to aknowledge that men are 9x more likely to get killed than a woman in the country... and even harsher is that the killing statist is probably higher than rape and although one leaves scars the other have nothing left.

And the point I abject the most is they saying there is a rape culture (forgeting no one have ever heard of an experience of a relative teaching a child that rape is good) and even the worst criminals condemn rape. So how could that really be a culture.

Other thing to consider... even though a woman nowadays may live to 81y or in the past to the 60, the rape incidence is not even close to random, it concentrate on lot lower age range.

Also as our friend put, there are a lot of unreported crimes, and as I put there is also a lot of false claims.

@Don
Yeah I know it's a hot button, but which fake numbers do we believe, the 90% aren't real or the 90% aren't even reported?
Wartaal was right about one thing, that it is best to just take an unbiased report like the DOJ and put the numbers to the test.

I think, especialy in Brazil, there is probably a lot of other issues involved. I know Brazil is a very sexual country. I dated a girl from Brazil and she wanted sex like 4 times a day. She complained that 2 hours of sex wasn't long enough. I also know that women in Brazil are much more assertive. So yaknow, I really don't know what to think of Brazil haha. I also know that Brazil has one of the highest disparate rates in terms of wealth where a lot of people are very poor and the rich are very few. So I can imagine that rape can be used as a tool to acquire money.
I can see that the whole situation is very complicated. On top of which, highly disparate countries tend to fund studies politically in order to spin the numbers. Brazil is very corrupt, I have heard. That doesn't really give me a lot of faith in any sort of study.

It's just where do we draw the line and say this study is good and these others aren't? I wish I knew more about the culture to say for sure. All I know, for sure, is my own experience. And in that experience I know a lot of girls who were and didn't say anything. I actually don't know a single girl who reported it. And in the workplace? Forget about it, I've worked at bars where the waitress was coerced into sex because they were going to lose their job. It's crazy.
But yeah, that's all I know for sure. I'm not sure I can really trust any numbers I see, but I do have a confirmation bias towards, for example, the numbers I found within the DOJ report.

Now that you mention it, I do think I was wrong adding in another 81million to the population size. I wasn't accounting for the assumption that crime trends would be consistent in the future so a rape involving someone who is not deceased would theoretically be attributed to someone who is currently alive in the future.

However this does mean that crime trends to need to be accounted for when assuming future crime and I am not good enough at stats to attempt to do that calculation (although, I do think it would have a quite notable effect due to the steep decrease in rape rates).

As for revictimization, I don't think the BJS accounts for it in the way you think it does. It is a survey that looks for amounts of victimizations per year, not the amount of victims per lifetime. If they do account for revictimization, it would be to increase their numbers to more accurately represent amount of victimizations per year, not decrease them. Further, the survey does even less than I thought it did when looking at victims per year. It actually allows for a victim to be counted up to 10 times per year. In fact, I was able to dig up stats (thanks for the lead) from the BJS excluding serial victimizations. Unfortunately it comes without numbers, but without even including multi-year revictimization, about 15-20% of the total BJS figure can be eliminated per year as a discrepancy between victimizations and victims: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mchfrv.pdf (Figure 10)

I'm not sure if this is the wording you were originally saying, but with your calculation I think the result would be "1 in 5 women will be victims of rape or sexual assault" and not "1 in 5 women have been victims of rape or sexual assault", because I think that your calculation assumes everyone in the population is 81 years old and about to die (I think?) because as I said above, you are accounting for theoretical future crimes in your sampling. Thats fine, I just wanted to make that distinction.

I do think this is still likely high for reasons stated above, however likely not by a tremendous amount.

EDIT

Oh, and side note, here is the BJS' definition of rape:

Now, I'm not sure if they are including attempted rape as part of rape by saying "attempting such an act", but I did notice that this definition does include penetration by a foreign object (which you said it didn't). Attempted rape also includes verbal threats, which I would typically classify as something else, but maybe thats just me. Sexual assault is also a fairly broadly defined phrase, and I do think that rape and sexual assault should be kept seperate when looking at stats (although I realize that isn't always possible).

I haven't actually done the math out for what the case will be going forward, given that cases have gone down. Especially with all the controversy nowadays, it would be harder to pinpoint accurate numbers.
Interestingly enough I think the drop in the 2000s is likely due to cellphone and smart phone proliferation .
I don't know exactly what the figure will be in the future, but I think it's pretty clear that 1-5, at the very least have previously been sexual ly assaulted in some way.
Anyway, even if we reference the serial victimization (lol I am beyond tired of this at this point) taking 20% off my initial figure of 4.7% is still higher than 4% and doesn't include population size or higher incidence numbers.

Do you think it's fair to say 20% is a number we xan agree on? Or no. If no, why.

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).
If you are trying to say the lifetime victimization of someone who is alive today, to date, I think the number would be closer to 1 in 7 or 8.
If you are trying to say the lifetime victimization of someone who is alive today, including future victimizations, I think the number would be closer to 1 in 5 or 6.

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.

Basically, what your math tells you is "how many victimizations occurred over the last 81 years" (by assuming a constant victimization rate, which I'm fine with). Then, it seems you take this number and try to say "all of those victimizations happened to people who are currently alive".

If you are using crimes from the past x amount of years, you don't know if the victims are still alive or not. Because of that, you would theoretically need to include everyone who has been alive over that period, increasing the population sample, which I did before, although that gives you the "percentage of people who have lived over the last 81 years who have been victimized over the last 81 years" (more or less), which isn't what you are trying to say.

In order to say how many victims are alive today, you have to remove everyone who has died between the time their original victimization took place (which is present in your data set) and the present in order to say how many victims are currently alive (which is clearly not possible with the current data)

The problems comes when you try to apply yearly data to "lifetime" data, which is unprovided by the BJS. I understand that the 1990 data doesn't include crimes happening in 2016, but a victim from 1990 may not be alive in 2016, so you can't include them as part of the "lifetime" total you are using for people alive today.

As for my 1 to 10 figure, I didn't mean to imply we should use that number going forwards. I think we should do research that looks into the actual lifetime prevalence, so we don't have to use a ghetto number. What I meant, is that we should talk about "lifetime victims" by year of birth, not the year they were alive. This allows much better computation and comparison of trends. For example, if using a "all people who are alive" standard, you deal with people who are 100 years old, who may have been victimized 90 years ago, which doesn't say much about the present, but does say something about 90 years ago. On the other hand, we also have people who were born yesterday, who also don't tell us much about current trends. Because of that, the data gets confounded, so using a "by birthdate" system would clear things up a lot.

Also, as I posted in an earlier edit (which I posted a little late so you probably missed it), BJS does include penetration with objects in its rape statistics. Also, its very worth noting that the BJS statistics are not rape statistics, but instead rape and sexual assault. Just because they don't include something under the definition of "rape" doesn't mean that it was excluded from these calculations. While its not always 100% clear what is included, the questionaire does clearly include coersion and unwanted sex, and the design of the survey is fairly personal so it wouldn't at all surprise me if many of the things that you are saying are not included were actually part of this survey and included under the "sexual assault" blanket, which is very broad.

I did just notice that they actually do provide data on what percentage of "Rape and Sexual Assault" was "Completed Rape" though. 30%. So if you were looking at the "lifetime completed rape" statistics for all women who are alive today (assuming your average victimization rate remains constant), including future victimizations, the percentage would be about 5.5% (using the BJS definition of rape, not the expanded definition). However, even if you want to use the more full definition, a full 18% of their "Rape and Sexual Assault" numbers were verbal threats, which I personally would consider to be a completely separate crime.

I totally understand your point about the 81 years, but my earlier counterpoint was that I had not actually adjusted the percentage to actual population. In fact, at the earliest cycle there were 70m people less already, though I factored the percentage for 160m. For instance, 1989 would have been 5.6% and 15 years prior would have been 6.4. Since the average can be assumed as 81, and we know that upper boundaries for life are near 95, that would indicate (loosely) that the majority of people would die between 65 and 100, with 30% being past that standard deviation, and the lower deviation being 15% dying between 50 (HA, I just made this loosely, but the actual number is in fact 15 years http://www.nber.org/papers/w14093).

So, about 30% die between 66 and 81, skewed closer to 81 than 66, and 15% die roughly from 51 to 66. That would mean that about 80% of people last until 66. This would take one cycle off of my figures, but again, seeing as how I didn't factor in population differences over the years, we would actually get:
4.7% + 5.6 + 6.4 + 7 = 4 cycles with 1 cycle being 15 years. Add to that the 6 years, which amounts to .33 extra cycles, which would add another 1.79%. I believe that moving forward, the number is closer to upper 200k per year which is off by about 100k during the period I used previously. This would affect the numbers by 1.5m. And with population increasing, we would probably be looking at 4% + 3.5% + 3.0% + 2.5%, so 13% or so for future lifetime totals if we start counting from now. 1 in 8 or so sounds about right to me, if I assume that the DOJ knows exactly how many go unreported (which I'm not confident of, but I'll accept).

Instead of 4% * 5.4 cycles

which would give us 21.7% + 1.79%.

We also need to factor in the 20% of deaths that happen before 66, but I'm not sure how to quantify it since the majority of rapes actually happen between 6-25. So people dying young doesn't much offset the number given that it's only 20% of deaths, with only about 5% happening in the highest risk ages. Just to be conservative, I will take off the entire 20% of our percentage which is:

23.5 *.8 = 18.8% I hope you can appreciate that this is extremely conservative in approach.

BUT....This number would factor in for deaths AND for population changes, even if conservatively. Still only 5% in total (18.8-21.4 <2.5%) to the number I found with about 4000 words less. Was the 4000 words worth a 2.4% difference given that the baseline being used was 20%? I'm not sure it was. I basically spent several hours finding a 1.2% change Conservative difference. Oh, I almost forgot that I was also using an incidence number from the lowest incidence numbers in time. Dude, I really think it's safely over 20%. Regardless of death or population or anything. In the future that will change. But I think it's very safe to say of all people currently alive, 20% is a workable number.

But anyway, regarding the second point, the methodological sheet mentioned the statements I made, which was published in 2006, so perhaps the questionairre has changed since then. I believe I copied and pasted the text in my big calculations post. But just in case, I'll repost it tomorrow, just to show good faith that I didn't make it up.