Ever had a poke through Feck's Warcraft File? A lot of good facts/references to facts that make said facts easy to find for you to base your arguments off of.

Quote from Chris Wedge

Ever had a poke through Feck's Warcraft File? A lot of good facts/references to facts that make said facts easy to find for you to base your arguments off of.

I have that set on my favorites

You shouldn't trust any of the rape stats they feed you. More than likely they are greatly exaggerated and cherry picked like most of their anti male hogwash. Their motto is very simple. "Never let facts get in the way of a good story."

Quote from silentblood

I have that set on my favorites

Same. In my anti-misandry folder no less.

Look up the story around Mary Koss of the U of Arizona - source for much of the hyper inflated mau mauing.

Also - Jennifer Beeman of University of California at Davis - just exposed for years of inflated stats...

Amongst Others

First up, determine why you are bothering with this debate. Who are you hoping to convince? If it is this person, then I'd say you're onto a loser and it's not worth your time: you could convert a thousand moderates to the balanced viewpoint quicker and easier than this person. If this is an open forum and it's all the other readers, then ok but bear in mind who it is you are addressing. If you are addressing the silent audience, then don't feel you have to respond to anything this person says: he'll wrap your head around your own ears getting you to defend stupidities while he's poisoning those same silent readers with nonsense.

If you are going to bother, always do your homework. Using Google or your other favourite search engine, this is rarely difficult. As far as possible, base any statistics on independent sources or what is published on government web sites. NOT because this necessarily improves accuracy but because it is more believable. Pointing to what a MRM site says, or a feminist site says is not a way to convince those of your audience who can be bothered to look into what you are saying.

Next, you need to know what you are trying to convince anyone of. It also helps if you work out why you are trying to convince them of it. You want them to believe rape is not so common? Why? You don't want women to be cautious? You want to give men a better reputation by saying "less men are bad than you think"? What is your message?

If you want to convince someone of something, it rarely does any good taking their beliefs head-on. If you believe that houses are good for shelter from getting wet, for example, it does little good for me to yell at you, tell you that you don't know what you are talking about and say that any sensible person realises that you can get wet inside a house. (I bet right now you can't see that houses aren't always a protection from people getting wet?) BUT if I approach things from where I believe you are coming from, agree as much as I can with joint beliefs and then take small step in my direction, you are more likely to follow and concede. E.g. "I do understand your position and agree that sheltering under a roof prevents rain from directly striking onto people - I think we both are aware of that - but do you also agree that in a flood, when water enters a house, people inside can get wet?" (See? Now I probably have you conceding the point that under some cases people can get wet inside a house.)

To convince the unseen audience, don't bother too much with direct response. He wants people to believe that one in four, or one in eight, women get raped. He will convince people of this because of the proof of 'over 200,000 rape reports in the US alone in a single year'. Female population of the USA, around 155 million / 200k = about 1 in 775 women raped in the year; divide that by average life expectancy 80? = about 1 in 9.7 assuming only one rape per victim. So, IF the 200,000 figure is correct, his stats are close enough not to argue about. However, his figure isn't right: the figure seems to be about 90,000 (including attempted rapes). But we need to find common ground. Let's see why the figures might be different: there it is - he's saying "rape reports" and I'm looking up "rapes". OK, so that gives us the chance to not only find common ground but even to open up the issue into another area: false allegations. Let's find out what those might be. I don't know about your search but mine wasn't so easy to find an unbiased figure but I came up with one site that says false allegations are 41%. If I keep looking I could find a higher figure but then again it's not difficult to find lower figures, too, so without spending more time, I'll go with 41% since that is from a police department. Actually, I might have just wasted some time because although that's a useful figure to know, the real figure we need is how many people were found guilty of rape. There's no pretence that everyone who committed rape has been found guilty but then there should be no pretence that everyone found guilty of rape actually did it. I was surprised to find how hard it was to get the data. But I did find a helpful Bureau of Justice Bulletin that gives figures for both rape and sexual assault. I'm going with that, as it will both make me appear more balanced and give me a chance to widen the issue for the point I want to make, all in one go.

If you are trying to convince the unseen audience that men aren't so bad, this leaves you with a posting something like:

Having looked into the statistics available, I can see where the one-in-eight figure is coming from. By taking the figure of 200,000 claimed rapes (which I have not managed to deny or confirm) and dividing that into the total female population, then assuming each woman only gets raped once over an average life of 80 years, I find a figure of about one women in ten being raped. That's nearly the one-in-eight and it is WAY too much for a healthy society. When you consider that we also need to allow for sexual assault, this is worth looking into.

Of course, as with any statistic, it is worth looking further. People in a society that believes in the principle for everyone - man or woman - to be innocent until proven guilty would reasonably agree that statistics of something illegal happening must be backed up by those found to have illegally done something. According to the Bureau of Justice in 2009 the number of rapes and sexual assaults was 126,000. Regrettably, they don't quote exactly how many of these were on women or committed by men, other than to make the general statements "males were victims of violent crime at rates slightly higher than females," and "females were more likely than males to be victims of rape or sexual assault." If we assume that 'more likely' it twice as likely, this leaves the combined rate of sexual assault/rape on women at around 82,000 and the combined rate of sexual assault/rape on men at around 44,000.

While these statistics say nothing of who the perpetrator was, most sexual attacks are heterosexual so means that about one in every 1900 women is attacked by a man every year and about one in every 3500 men is attacked by a woman every year.

In conclusion, I find the number of sexual attacks to be a disturbing part of our society that should be addressed. While it seems we are more likely to be robbed than sexually assaulted/raped, those victims - male and female - deserve our support and help and the criminals - male or female - deserve harsh punishment.

Did you see what I did, or at least attempted? (I'm not perfect at this.) I first pulled people who might be thinking the extreme figure in with me, keeping them switched on rather than turning them off by rubbishing the data. Showing all the logic while also making it clear that I'm not excusing criminals. I did what I could to provide a balanced viewpoint (if anything leaning away from my viewpoint, which helps to keep it balanced), not minimising the victims and at the same time showing complete reasonableness and social concern. Coming back and arguing against that is going to be difficult without obviously appearing unreasonable. Your 'opponent' won't be convinced but I didn't really try, nor do I care: I didn't address him, so he can't come back at ME so easily - he has to approach the ISSUE. The unseen audience - most of whom are sitting on the fence, wondering about the issue - will have been swayed to a more sensible and balanced viewpoint.

Now, this DID take me some time to put together. Even if I halve the time because I'm both explaining the methodology as well as getting the data, it took some time. It IS necessary to do your homework and while the Internet allows that to be done in minutes rather than hours, or hours not days, the effort is still needed.

I'll let you do your OWN checking on the data I've come up with and post the results into the statistics section of this site for future reference.

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

Thanks for the detailed post Douglas

False rape accusations in 'numerical terms' is a far greater problem than rape itself. In 2009 the UK 'attrition' rate was 5.2%, whilst the conviction rate was 58% for those cases which proceeded to crown court.

Man-hating feminists like Harriet Harman have deliberately peddled the attrition rate (point of reporting) as being the conviction rate for years, and despite numerous warnings from Independent commissions as to her interpretation on reality - she was always able to continue with her public promotion of her despicable lies.

Quote from Celtic Druid

In 2009 the UK 'attrition' rate was 5.2%

The attrition rate is actually all allegations recorded by the police that dont end in a conviction in the courts.

thus the 6 per cent conviction rate figure used by womens organisations is misleading.

If you read my 3 part blog post on The Stern Review, Baroness Stern does a brilliant job of explaining it.

Here is the summarized section:

[p.9]: The Conviction Rate Has Taken Over The Debate:

'Conviction rates for rape are the subject of considerable political and media attention. Much is said about the conviction rate for rape being six (6) per cent in England and Wales. The six per cent figure is widely quoted. We found in carrying out this review that it was known and used by almost everyone in the field. Some have found it helpful as a campaigning tool in arguing for an improvement in the way rape cases are dealt with. Others found it misleading and deeply unhelpful in building confidence in victims and increasing the number of cases reported to the police that could possibly go forward to a prosecution. Many expressed concern at the widespread use of this figure without analysis or explaination.

'The way this conviction rate figure (6%) is calculated is unusual. Conviction rates are not published or even measured in this way for any other crime so its very difficult to make a comparison. The term 'conviction rate' usually describes the percentage of all the cases brought to court that end with the defendant being convicted. When dealing with rape the term has come to be used in a different way and describes the percentage of all the cases recorded by the police as a rape that end up with someone being convicted of rape.

We have looked closely at the information about conviction for rape and it is clear to us that the figure for convictions of people of all ages charged with rape (as the term is normally used in relation to crime) is 58 per cent. The confusion arises from mixing up the conviction rate with the process of attrition. 'Attrition' is the process by which a number of cases of rape initially reported do not proceed, perhaps because the complainant decides not to take the case further, there is not enough evidence to prosecute, or the case is taken to court and the suspect is acquitted. The attrition rate figure has been the cause of considerable concern, and attempts to reduce it are behind many of the reforms that have been introduced in recent years.

[p.46): 'It is clear to us that the way the six per cent conviction rate figure has been able to dominate the public discourse on rape, without explaination, analysis and context, is extremely unhelpful. There is anecdotal evidence that it may well have discouraged some victims from reporting.'

Damn, please disregard the last post, what I was meant to have said and quoted is this:


The attrition rate is actually all allegations recorded by the police that dont end in a conviction in the courts. The attrition rate figure is around 94%.

The 6% conviction rate myth used by feminists, is arrived at by including the attrition rate, which they should not do as it gives us a misleading figure of 6%.

Baroness Stern explains it best:

'The way this conviction rate figure (6%) is calculated is unusual. Conviction rates are not published or even measured in this way for any other crime so its very difficult to make a comparison. The term 'conviction rate' usually describes the percentage of all the cases brought to court that end with the defendant being convicted. When dealing with rape the term has come to be used in a different way and describes the percentage of all the cases recorded by the police as a rape that end up with someone being convicted of rape.

We have looked closely at the information about conviction for rape and it is clear to us that the figure for convictions of people of all ages charged with rape (as the term is normally used in relation to crime) is 58 per cent. The confusion arises from mixing up the conviction rate with the process of attrition. 'Attrition' is the process by which a number of cases of rape initially reported do not proceed, perhaps because the complainant decides not to take the case further, there is not enough evidence to prosecute, or the case is taken to court and the suspect is acquitted.'

@Spitfir3:

Compared to other alleged crimes, the charge of rape carries an especially potent stigma against a defendant. Even if he isn't convicted, he is demonized far more intensely than, say, a man accused and later acquitted of burglary. Secondly, if he is convicted he is specially and violently targeted in prison by other prisoners because they too despise rapists. Lastly, accused rapists are despised by public policy as manifested in the judicial process. Rape shield laws make it illegal to point out the sexual history of the accuser, on the assumption that all of this is completely irrelevant, as if there somehow isn't a profile on the kind of person who is more likely to unleash a false allegation. In fact, a woman who is in danger of being exposed and shamed for her sexual indiscretions is far more likely to make a false allegation of rape as a means of justifying her sexual indiscretions compared to a woman who faces no such public shaming. Sexual history is, in my opinion, completely relevant, and yet unlike other criminal allegations a defendant who faces rape charges is particularly at a legal disadvantage due to rape shield laws.

And so it is completely appropriate to point out the low conviction rate for rape as a percentage of accusations, not necessarily as a percentage of prosecutions.

Quote from John Dias

And so it is completely appropriate to point out the low conviction rate for rape as a percentage of accusations, not necessarily as a percentage of prosecutions.

well yes I agree, but if we attack it from the other angle, we can point to the womens organisations and say that they have been using misleading statistics, so we could discredit them at the same time.

But yes you make me think that when I post in comments sections at the Guardian, Daily Mail, etc, maybe it would be easier for the reader who is new to this area, if we were just to say 'The low conviction rate is due to false accusations'.

Not get into the details, but fight fire with fire.

Quote from John Dias

...it is completely appropriate to point out the low conviction rate for rape as a percentage of accusations, not necessarily as a percentage of prosecutions.

I have to disagree and correct this.

"Conviction rate" in criminology and legal usage is term describing a ratio achieved by dividing the number of convictions secured for a crime by the number of trials brought for that crime.
You cannot properly have a 'conviction rate as a percentage of accusations.'

You can have a ratio of convictions compared to accusations but that isn't what is known as the conviction rate; it's the attrition rate.