Dennis Prager says women campus assualts lie

[dragon]

Why do some people say such things when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary

On Tuesday, radio personality and columnist Dennis Prager blamed "the feminist left" for what he says is the "gargantuan lie" that women are commonly sexually assaulted while in college.

Prager, speaking at a rally organized by the Sarasota Republican Party in support of Gov. Rick Scott, said there is no "rape culture" on college campuses, and instead "a rape of the culture." Women's rights activists and students at many campuses have pointed to an ongoing problem of campus rape and assault, and earlier this year, the Obama administration convened the White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault that published a comprehensive report on the problem. Last month, the administration launched the "It's On Us" campaign to decrease sexual assault rates. According to findings from the Department of Justice, one in five college women is sexually assaulted.

Calling the one in five statistic "nonsense," Prager said, "Do you know what sexual assault means? Did you ever look at what counts? An unwanted kiss is considered sexual assault. I'm stunned it's only 1 in 5. Four out of five women have not gotten an unwanted kiss? My wife gets unwanted kisses every so often."

That last comment reportedly elicited some audience chuckles.

Sarasota Republican Party chairman Joe Gruters told the Sarasota Herald-Tribune that the topic of sexual assault "should never have been part of a political discussion at the rally." The comments, though, were not unusual for Prager: Just a week before the rally, Prager's own website stated "White House College Sexual Assault Statistics Grossly Exaggerated."

link

[Frank the Tank]

He has a point that "sexual assault" is extremely broad and can mean everything from an unwanted pat on the butt to a vicious gang rape. As a guy I can't say that I truly understand how women feel about the topic, but in my mind there's a vast gulf between the two. The former (a pat on the butt) is annoying and perhaps a bit frightening, but ultimately not especially harmful, while actually being raped seems far more severe.

I don't say this to downplay unwanted pats on the butt, but simply to draw a distinction between two very different things that fall under the category of sexual assault. Of course, my opinion (as a guy) isn't quite the opinion that matters. I'd be interested to hear what some women might have to say.

As far as Dennis Prager goes... I suspect the guy is being combative and a douchebag to get attention and wind up his party's base against "evil feminists" and other people they don't like, more than I think he's actually justifying sexual assault.

[Covenant]

Nobody would say they are the same thing but honestly this sets the bar insanely low. How much of a neanderthal do you have to be in order for "please do not grab my butt" to be met with "It's just a light touch, I think you are over-reacting a little bit."

He also glosses right over the fact, because he is an idiot, that spousal rape is a major problem. If his wife really is receiving unwanted, forced kisses from him regularly then yeah, he's assaulting her.

Really people, is this so hard? Is this seriously so hard?

[TheHammer]

Nobody would say they are the same thing but honestly this sets the bar insanely low. How much of a neanderthal do you have to be in order for "please do not grab my butt" to be met with "It's just a light touch, I think you are over-reacting a little bit."

When you introduce alcohol those things are bound to happen more often in spur of the moment situations. However, "sexual assault" and "sex offenses" is far too broad a category. Clearly you don't want to take a stance that unwanted groping, particularly when its been made explicitly clear that its unwanted, is "okay", but I think that anything lacking direct genital contact should be labeled something other than "sexual assault".

[Ziggy Stardust]

I think that anything lacking direct genital contact should be labeled something other than "sexual assault".

Why is genital contact the line you draw? Are you aware of the wide variety of sexual and intimate activities that can be done without direct genital contact? If I hold a woman down and violate her with a vibrator, by your logic that isn't sexual assault.

[TheHammer]

I think that anything lacking direct genital contact should be labeled something other than "sexual assault".

Why is genital contact the line you draw? Are you aware of the wide variety of sexual and intimate activities that can be done without direct genital contact? If I hold a woman down and violate her with a vibrator, by your logic that isn't sexual assault.

Doesn't have to be genital to genital. If you're violating her with the vibrator then I'm presuming you're coming into contact her with genitalia are you not? That would then be sexual assault. Regardless, Holding someone down against their will is already a serious crime. Its not as though that would be "okay" either.

[Zixinus]

Just because "sexual assault" can be as little as unwanted kisses that does not mean that the entirety of the problem consists of unwanted kisses. This is an entitled white male who has never, ever tried to understand what it is like to live as anything else. He doesn't know and doesn't care to know and he wants the votes of people who do not want to be held responsible for their behavior.

I am in college, have a genuine case of Asperger's, admit to be a reclusive loner and yet I still manage to avoid accidentally kissing the few girls that also attend college. In fact I managed to avoid accidentally kissing girls my whole life. Even if its as "minor" as being kissed without consent, why should women have to bear this behavior?

Oh, right, because men think that any sexual interest is a result of having a manly aura and thus always-welcome signs of worship, and can only think that for women this is somehow the same. He should ask his wife whether she would be happy if strangers forced her to withstand being kissed without their consent. Or maybe he should have a go at it himself by men, he clearly thinks that it is not somehow bad.

[Patroklos]

Just because "sexual assault" can be as little as unwanted kisses that does not mean that the entirety of the problem consists of unwanted kisses.

Except that's not what he or anyone in the thread said. The point he is obviously trying to make is that certain parties want to conflate instances of "unwanted kisses" with a gang rape so they can inflate the numbers they quote for effect. This is obviously true.

There are two douche bag parties here, those who want to under report the problem to ignore it away and those who want to over inflate it so that they can be a draconian in their solutions as possible. The second one you might think is less of an evil until you consider that the obvious hyperbole in the messaging of the second makes the first easier to accomplish.

[Covenant]

There are two douche bag parties here, those who want to under report the problem to ignore it away and those who want to over inflate it so that they can be a draconian in their solutions as possible. The second one you might think is less of an evil until you consider that the obvious hyperbole in the messaging of the second makes the first easier to accomplish.

Who are the second parties though? Do they actually exist? I mean, I think people show these numbers to demonstrate how scary the situation is, and that fearmongering causes problems too, sure. But this sounds like the nebulous "scientists" that want to inflate global warming figures. I am not saying there may be individuals and some small communities of wackos who want to drop the hammer, is there really any evidence of people over-inflating assault statistics for any other reason than consciousness-raising?

Is there a harm outside whatever harm can be inferred by increasing hyperbole in news reports? Do we know if this hyperbole is because this group has an internal reason to inflate numbers or if it is only in reaction to the suppression of numbers related to maintaining the social status quo?

I'm not going to say it is not a problem at all, but if it is a problem, where does it come from and where is the harm being done?

[Frank the Tank]

The second parties are the stereotypical "angry feminists who hate all men" that Prager is scapegoating. They may be few in number, but their impact far exceeds their numbers, because they represent a viewpoint that scares the hell out of many men. Plus, much like Dennis Prager, they say absurd an ridiculous things (for example, "all sex is rape") in order to rile people up and get reactions out of them.

If the goal is to reduce incidences of rape on college campuses, then conflating (primarily) women who are actually raped with women who have their butts grabbed and treating the two as if they are exactly the same isn't helpful. Neither action is acceptable, but the reaction to unwanted butt grabbing should probably be public shaming rather than 25 years in prison, while the reaction to rape shouldn't be "she asked for it" but prison time.

When stereotypical "angry feminists" treat unwanted kissing as exactly the same as rape, it gives the neanderthals an excuse to legitimize women who are victims of serious sexual assaults.

[Simon_Jester]

The problem is, frankly, that the six or so "angry feminists" that actually exist* aren't relevant. The only reason Prager is talking about them is because they make a convenient scapegoat, not because they're actually a problem.

So Covenant asks "where's the harm caused by exaggerating campus rape rates, even assuming that actually happens?"**

And the answer seems to be "uh... exaggerating gives people an excuse to dismiss any attempt to complain about the issue?"

The reply to that is "Well, the people who are dismissing the complaint because like three people are exaggerating... THEY are the problem. They'd be looking for excuses to dismiss and marginalize rape victims anyway, and they have a whole arsenal of tactics for doing it.
_____________

*Number deflated for comic effect, but seriously I doubt they constitute more than 1-2% of all feminists let alone all women...

** Seriously, I wouldn't take anyone's word so far for the part where it's exaggerated. It honestly wouldn't surprise me to learn that one in four or five women experience degrading sexualized treatment that merits the term "sexual assault."

[Feil]

Everybody hold up.

Between 5% and 20% of women will be victims of rape or attempted rape over the course of their time spent at college, depending on your study of choice. The 1 in 5 figure accepted by the government (including the CDC, not just the Administration) a reasonable and common estimate for felony sexual assault. The "pat on the butt" argument isn't just pathetic, it's not true: pats on the butt and similar forms of unsolicited light sexual contact are almost certainly not included in the figure.

If you want to discuss whether or not it's appropriate to "inflate" the statistics of "real" sexual assault values to 20%, I suggest moving the discussion a few forums up to Fantasy, where it belongs.

[Phillip Hone]

Yeah, it's a little frightening that these discussions tend to center on the dangers of getting carried away in dealing with the problem - the idea of false rape allegations hypothetically becoming a problem for men is considered more serious and urgent than the actual widespread rape of women that is already happening.

[TheFeniX]

Yeah, it's a little frightening that these discussions tend to center on the dangers of getting carried away in dealing with the problem - the idea of false rape allegations hypothetically becoming a problem for men is considered more serious and urgent than the actual widespread rape of women that is already happening.

You have to realize, there's a large amount of men (and women, to be honest) alive now who grew up in a time where this shit was perfectly acceptable and they've passed along stories to their progeny about how "when I was a young man, women didn't mind a soft pat on the ass." Just like how "we handled our problems ourselves" usually with violence that should have landed them in jail. Women didn't need to protect themselves because nice girls didn't end up in these types of situations and big strapping men would handle any bullshit for them either way.

Hell, my biological grandmother on my mother's side did time for manslaughter. Why? Because her husband (thankfully not the man I am related to) beat her so bad that she wasn't even recognizable. She swore to him if he ever came at her again, she'd kill him. After she got better, he decided he needed to reaffirm her position as his punching bag. Half-way through the beating, she managed to get hold of a knife from the kitchen and stabbed that motherfucker and killed him. But she got time due to it being the 60s and that "well, he didn't beat you to death the first time, so it's obvious you shouldn't have been in fear of your life" because prosecutors didn't get hugged enough as children.

The law has mostly caught up with the times, but some asshats still pine for the old days when men were men and women were baby-factories that have dumb opinions. Those people aren't quite old enough to be put out to pasture yet..... or sent to the glue factory.

[Serafina]

He has a point that "sexual assault" is extremely broad and can mean everything from an unwanted pat on the butt to a vicious gang rape. As a guy I can't say that I truly understand how women feel about the topic, but in my mind there's a vast gulf between the two. The former (a pat on the butt) is annoying and perhaps a bit frightening, but ultimately not especially harmful, while actually being raped seems far more severe.

I don't say this to downplay unwanted pats on the butt, but simply to draw a distinction between two very different things that fall under the category of sexual assault. Of course, my opinion (as a guy) isn't quite the opinion that matters. I'd be interested to hear what some women might have to say.

As far as Dennis Prager goes... I suspect the guy is being combative and a douchebag to get attention and wind up his party's base against "evil feminists" and other people they don't like, more than I think he's actually justifying sexual assault.

Well, yes, of course they are not the same thing.

But being sexually harassed* is instilling a lots of fear. If he doesn't respect your boundaries there, when does it stop? I can't defend myself unless bystanders are on my side (he's physically stronger), and they don't appear to care right now.
Compare it with, say, bullying. Being shoved out of the way does not necessarily harm you physically - but he clearly COULD have, and people around you look away, don't do anything about it. This time you "got lucky", what about next time?

Stuff like this can turn even little things into gut-wrenching fear. And its important to stop those little things too - because they are often a sign that their perpetrator does worse things, just out of view.



*there, a term that can be used to make a distinction to sexual assault

[PainRack]

Everybody hold up.

Between 5% and 20% of women will be victims of rape or attempted rape over the course of their time spent at college, depending on your study of choice. The 1 in 5 figure accepted by the government (including the CDC, not just the Administration) a reasonable and common estimate for felony sexual assault. The "pat on the butt" argument isn't just pathetic, it's not true: pats on the butt and similar forms of unsolicited light sexual contact are almost certainly not included in the figure.

If you want to discuss whether or not it's appropriate to "inflate" the statistics of "real" sexual assault values to 20%, I suggest moving the discussion a few forums up to Fantasy, where it belongs.

It gets worse than that.. The survey includes sexual assault.

Not counting the types of sexual contact already mentioned, have you experienced any
unwanted or uninvited touching of a sexual nature since school began in fall 1996? This
includes forced kissing, touching of private parts, grabbing, fondling, and rubbing up
against you in a sexual way, even if it is over your clothes.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/182369.pdf

The figures for that are 30% and more........


So................................... Now, there's the question of cueing and all that but the reason why cues were so heavily used in the survey question is because most females are reluctant to classify themselves as rape victims. Considering the potential trauma, this is a justified stance rather than acussations of false bias.

[General Zod]

Okay. So, how many guys would freak out if another dude they didn't know that was built like a linebacker groped their ass and gave them a smooch? Would it be legitimate for them to feel threatened?

[Tribble]

Okay. So, how many guys would freak out if another dude they didn't know that was built like a linebacker groped their ass and gave them a smooch? Would it be legitimate for them to feel threatened?

I'm willing to bet most guys would freak out and feel threatened, although homophobia may play a role. Would the number of guys who freaked out and felt threatened be the same if a woman did that? How about a woman built like a linebacker?

[General Zod]

I'm just wondering why it's justified for a guy to freak out over it, but if a woman freaks out she's "overreacting."

[Channel72]

Are the stats really 1 in 5? That seems counterintuitive. I googled around, and was able to find a stat indicating that 1 in 5 women - OVERALL - report a rape or attempted rape at some point in their life, but this has nothing to do with college campuses specifically. Where is Prager getting this stat from? His whole rant might be a strawman. That's not to say college campus rape isn't an actual problem, just that Prager may be exaggerating his hypothetical opponents' statistics in order to mock it.

EDIT: Nevermind; I found the stat, (I also see a 1 in 4 stat). I failed at Google.

[Channel72]

It seems the 1-in-4 stat is contested a bit, mainly by conservatives or anti-feminists with an agenda, obviously.

Wikipedia gives a good summary of the origins of this statistic - the gist of it is that it's the result of a survey conducted across 32 US college campuses that combines both females who reported incidents of rape, and males who admitted to perpetrating rape. The latter stat seems obviously unreliable even under anonymity, and would only serve to minimize the results - which lends credibility to the feminist position or those who support the 1-in-4/1-in-5 stat as valid.

On the other hand, the survey apparently included questions like "Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs" - which really doesn't adequately disambiguate between consensual (but regrettable) sex under the influence of alcohol versus non-consensual sex after being seriously drugged via something like Narcozep or other date-rape drugs.

Also - and this is sort of an important point - the survey asked about ALL sexual experiences since the age of 14, not simply sexual experiences that occurred ON CAMPUS - so this stat apparently includes women who were raped off-campus before they enrolled in college. So this stat doesn't really indicate that college campuses in particular are necessarily some sort of hotbed of sex crimes - it just indicates that all young women are in danger of getting raped. Intuitively, it would of course seem that college campuses would provide a lot more opportunity for rape to occur, of course.

But it's shit like this that gives so much ammo to detractors. Obviously, the reality is that college campus rape is a serious, widely-occurring problem. But this should serve as a reminder that it never helps to exaggerate the data that supports any sort of important cause - it just gives ammo to detractors and hurts the credibility of advocates. It's like Al Gore's alarming global warming predictions indicating that the total melting of all ice in the North Pole by 2014 was likely - a prediction which of course is now being ruthlessly mocked by climate change deniers and other right-wingers.

Lesson: if you're passionate about some cause, don't fucking exaggerate. It may rally your supporters in the short term, but it just hurts your cause in the long run. Anyway, I'm not saying the 1-in-4 statistic is necessarily exaggerated because I honestly don't know - I'm saying that it detracts from the real issue, which is that campus rape actually does happen frequently.

[Zixinus]

Except that's not what he or anyone in the thread said.

No, but he implied that a significant part of the sexual offenses has to be trivial because of overly broad definitions. I am saying that what he considers trivial is not.

What he also said that the women reporting these were lying which is also ludicrous.

There are two douche bag parties here, those who want to under report the problem to ignore it away and those who want to over inflate it so that they can be a draconian in their solutions as possible.

Is there? Who are these women? Name them. Prove that they are somehow involved in the One in Four campaign. Show me that they have meddled with the statistics data.

And even if they are, they are a separate problem that needs to be addressed separately.

That there is a possible opposing party does not mean that the first party's belittling and denying of the problem is somehow justified.

[Frank the Tank]

Mongoose: Yeah, it's a little frightening that these discussions tend to center on the dangers of getting carried away in dealing with the problem - the idea of false rape allegations hypothetically becoming a problem for men is considered more serious and urgent than the actual widespread rape of women that is already happening.

False rape allegations are a problem for men. According to the FBI nearly 10% of rape allegations are untrue or false.

And do me a favor and please head off any tantrum or tirade before you begin. I am in no way minimizing or approving of rape simply because I point out the very real fear that some men have of being falsely accused of rape. Both things (rape, and being falsely accused of rape) are bad, and false accusations are harmful to efforts to actually reduce or eliminate rape, because they perpetuate the idea that many/most women are lying about rape. High profile false accusations (like Duke lacrosse) may be even worse, because they cause people to question and doubt women who have actually been raped as liars and attention seekers.

[Terralthra]

That statistic about "untrue" rape allegations is...let's say hotly contested. The FBI doesn't go out and investigate such things, it only collates data sent to it about what are called "unfounded" allegations, those being allegations that are not pursued by the police or the DA. "Untrue or false" is one reason they might not be pursued, but there are other reasons like "we couldn't get a conviction with the evidence we had," or "she was asking for it," from particularly shitty police departments.

[General Zod]

I'm not sure that false rape allegations are actually relevant to whether or not people will believe women. "She's lying" is always going to be a popular defense whether it's a legitimate acsusation or not.