Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Daleth · 07-17-2003, 05:32 AM

Follow-up: according to the stats I just read from the US DOJ, 31.5% of female rape victims are injured. It doesn't give any breakdown of the level of injury, so that 31.5% covers everything from being stabbed to a bruised wrist. Didn't say what percentage are murdered. Given that chance that there will be any injury at all, I can't see a "kill 'em all" attitude about it as moral, even though I feel so culturally obligated to that it hurts and I'm actually ashamed to say it (and I can't think of any other subject that makes me feel shame). I'm not in any way implying that it's never OK to use lethal force.

Vandrare · 07-17-2003, 05:43 AM

Daleth - i have to agree with you here. though it seems wrong to say it, i'm not sure i can agree with killing someone for rape. if it was the most uncommon and violent form of grap in the parking lot, rape and kill, then definitely there is reason to use lethal force. but for date rape, it seems far too overboard!

anyway, here's an interesting link about such things that people may find informative - it helps to show how complicated the matter is.

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/rape.html

:-D Anna

noli · 07-17-2003, 06:09 AM

[Violence against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994.]

- In 47% of rapes, the victim sustained injuries other than rape injuries.

...Daleth, perhaps your statistic of 31.5% is excluding rape injuries (ie: vaginal tearing)? I ask because DOJ for 1994 states that 75% of rape victims require hospital care.

noli · 07-17-2003, 06:16 AM

More:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsarp00.htm

Rape and Sexual Assault: Reporting to Police and Medical Attention, 1992-2000

Presents information on the consequences of rape and sexual assault for female victims. The study provides the percentages of completed rape, attempted rape, and sexual assault of females that were reported to the police in 1992-2000. The report provides the percentage of victims that were injured and treated from a completed rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault. It presents the percentage of those who reported to the police, and the percentage of those victims who received treatment and whose victimization was reported to the police.

Highlights include the following:

All rapes, 39% of attempted rapes and 17% of sexual assaults against females resulted in injured victims, 1992-2000.

When a rape or sexual assault was reported to the police, the victim was the most likely to report it.

45% of injured female victims of a reported attempted rape compared to 22% of injured victims of an unreported attempted rape received medical treatment, 1992-2000

08/02 NCJ 194530

Amen-Moses · 07-17-2003, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by noli
45% of injured female victims of a reported attempted rape compared to 22% of injured victims of an unreported attempted rape received medical treatment, 1992-2000

I'm having great difficulty working out how in hell this stat could even be measured, if the attempted rape was unreported and the victims recieved no medical treatment then how on earth can we count them or know they were injured?

Sounds like a bit of hand waving going on here.

Amen-Moses

Bree · 07-17-2003, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vandrare
if it was the most uncommon and violent form of grap in the parking lot, rape and kill, then definitely there is reason to use lethal force. but for date rape, it seems far too overboard!

But "regular" rape and date-rape are the same thing: they both involve a man sticking his wee-wee in a place it don't belong. Both acts are acts of violence that leave the woman feeling helpless and used.

How do you define them?

brighid · 07-17-2003, 06:38 AM

My opinion is that if a woman isn't trained to properly handle a gun in stressful and dangerous situation (and the same applies to men) I don't see a gun as being useful in a suprise, stranger attack with the purpose of rape. Most women are too timid to pull the trigger and don't know how to prevent the weapon being taken from them when being over powered by an assailant.

I would say a woman is better off learning self-defense because it will teach her to walk with confidence, avoid potential, bad situations and how to handle herself under pressure filled, dangerous situations. This will help her look like a less likely victim to the predator, and therefore be less likely to be assaulted. Predators choose victims that appear to be easy targets. Your best defense is not to be an easy target.

If a woman can be trained properly and has the confidence to handle carrying a concealed weapon I wouldn't have a problem with that. Even then I would HIGHLY recommend self-defense training in conjunction with proper weapons handling. This will help her in potential acquaintance rape and stranger rape/assault situations.

Honestly, I think every woman should become proficient in self-defense because we are all too often targeted for victimization (as well as socialized to be polite, lady like and timid.)

Brighid

Purple Smartie · 07-17-2003, 06:50 AM

I think education is the best form of protection against nearly everything in life, from HIV/AIDS infection to rape situations. If you know how to avoid potentially dangerous situations, know how much alcohol is too much for you personally to retain control, know how to fire the weapon in your purse quickly and accurately under stressful conditions, you are a million times safer than a woman who doesn't know these things.

Is a gun the best protection against a rapist? Realistically, unless you plan to crack him over the head with the gun, I don't think so. When a man is close enough to grab you, he's also close enough to take the gun away if you're trying to hold it and aim it between your body and his. Your best bet is to swing wide and knock him out with it, break his nose or something.

Morally, I don't think it is right to have a gun and not have the proper training to use it safely. It's no different than getting behind the wheel of a car and not knowing how to drive it. In both cases, you're putting yourself and potentially innocent bystanders in danger.

I think it's the general concensus that a self-defense course or other form of education is the best, and most morally sound, protection for women.

And if you feel like shooting, get him in the groin. See if he ever rapes again

keyser_soze · 07-17-2003, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daleth
OK, disclaimer or something along those lines. Talking about rape scares the crap out of me. I am shaking and nauseous as I type this. It's not because I've ever been raped. It's because I feel like I'm revealing myself to be a monster of some sort. There is a huge amont of public rhetoric surrounding rape, and it has increase throughout my life. Rape is considered by many the worst possible crime besides murder, and there seems to be a growing public sentiment that rape should be a capital crime. And I feel like there must be something deeply wrong with me because I don't feel like rape is the worst thing that could happen to me short of murder.

Are you a woman? I'm not a woman, but I've counseled a lot of raped women and molested children...And even that is enough to make we want to kill the predators for something they've done to SOMEONE ELSE.

There are other crimes that scare me a lot more. The rhetoric is so heated that I sincerely feel like I must be defective to feel this way, and the nausea is the result of feeling like my relative lack of fear is completely socially unacceptable. I do not in any way mean to diminish the harm that's done to so many women by anything I say here and I have great sympathy towards the victims of this crime. If what I'm saying is harmful to victims of rape, I'll shut up.

Neither do I, but I've always understood killing in self-defense to mean in defense of one's life.

So what's fair, she should ask him if he means to just rape and not murder or beat her before hand before deciding the proper amount of force to use in defense of her person?

Does it? I'm really asking... does it happen every day? Later on you say "women are frequently killed following a rape". How frequently? Rape is a very common crime. Most cases are date rape or other known assailant. If 1 in 10 women will be raped in their lives, how many of those will also be murdered? How many seriously injured?

A quick web search would probably net you many reports of murders of women. What you fail to realize is that in a lot of instances, the reports of murdered women do not mention that they were raped prior. It seems to be fairly common practice to mention the worst of the offenses (which is murder) in the short blurbs given in the paper or the telly. Do you think that women should just cross their fingers and hope that they won't be the percentage of raped victims that get beaten or killed after? Perhaps if one of bundy's victims had defended herself early on...well, you get the point. You look at the numbers of rape and don't seem to see what they mean. If a person is willing to break a law, and violate in the most aggregious manner, another person, what makes it so likely that they won't cross another line and beat or kill the woman? The rapist is breaking a law, and he is harming another person. Just how far should his rights infringe on hers? For me, not one iota.

I agree with that completely in cases of rape by a stranger. In the far more common case of rape by a known assailant, there's a much better chance that you could know what's going on, what the real level of threat is, whether an injury will be enough to let your ex-boyfriend know that when you said no you bloody well meant no. A lot of rapists are neither homocidal maniacs nor raving sociopaths. Not to give them any excuse whatsoever, but the psychology of a one time date rapist is not the same as that of a guy who grabs women as they walk through dark parking lots.

Yeah, I know he's right sometimes, but please don't tell me this means you think it's fine to condemn people to death for trying to take the $40 you've got in your wallet.

Take a look at how many muggings or store robberies end in the death of an innocent civilian for less than 40$

Daleth · 07-17-2003, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by noli
...Daleth, perhaps your statistic of 31.5% is excluding rape injuries (ie: vaginal tearing)? I ask because DOJ for 1994 states that 75% of rape victims require hospital care.

Here is the report I was looking at, which is a DOJ report hosted on a rape awareness site, dated 2000.

A couple excerpts:

Women are significantly more likely than men to be injured during an assault: 31.5 percent of female rape victims, compared with 16.1 percent of male rape victims, reported being injured during their most recent rape; 39.0 percent of female physical assault victims, compared with 24.8 percent of male physical assault victims, reported being injured during their most recent physical assault.

Approximately one-third of injured female rape and physical assault victims receive medical treatment: 35.6 percent of the women injured during their most recent rape and 30.2 percent of the women injured during their most recent physical assault received medical treatment.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-17-2003, 05:32 AM	#21
Daleth Regular Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: NYC, 5th floor, on the left Posts: 372	Follow-up: according to the stats I just read from the US DOJ, 31.5% of female rape victims are injured. It doesn't give any breakdown of the level of injury, so that 31.5% covers everything from being stabbed to a bruised wrist. Didn't say what percentage are murdered. Given that chance that there will be any injury at all, I can't see a "kill 'em all" attitude about it as moral, even though I feel so culturally obligated to that it hurts and I'm actually ashamed to say it (and I can't think of any other subject that makes me feel shame). I'm not in any way implying that it's never OK to use lethal force.

07-17-2003, 05:43 AM	#22
Vandrare Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Brisneyland Posts: 854	Daleth - i have to agree with you here. though it seems wrong to say it, i'm not sure i can agree with killing someone for rape. if it was the most uncommon and violent form of grap in the parking lot, rape and kill, then definitely there is reason to use lethal force. but for date rape, it seems far too overboard! anyway, here's an interesting link about such things that people may find informative - it helps to show how complicated the matter is. http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/rape.html :-D Anna

07-17-2003, 06:09 AM	#23
noli Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: USA Posts: 20	[Violence against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994.] - In 47% of rapes, the victim sustained injuries other than rape injuries. ...Daleth, perhaps your statistic of 31.5% is excluding rape injuries (ie: vaginal tearing)? I ask because DOJ for 1994 states that 75% of rape victims require hospital care.

07-17-2003, 06:16 AM	#24
noli Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: USA Posts: 20	More: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rsarp00.htm Rape and Sexual Assault: Reporting to Police and Medical Attention, 1992-2000 Presents information on the consequences of rape and sexual assault for female victims. The study provides the percentages of completed rape, attempted rape, and sexual assault of females that were reported to the police in 1992-2000. The report provides the percentage of victims that were injured and treated from a completed rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault. It presents the percentage of those who reported to the police, and the percentage of those victims who received treatment and whose victimization was reported to the police. Highlights include the following: All rapes, 39% of attempted rapes and 17% of sexual assaults against females resulted in injured victims, 1992-2000. When a rape or sexual assault was reported to the police, the victim was the most likely to report it. 45% of injured female victims of a reported attempted rape compared to 22% of injured victims of an unreported attempted rape received medical treatment, 1992-2000 08/02 NCJ 194530

07-17-2003, 06:38 AM	#27
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	My opinion is that if a woman isn't trained to properly handle a gun in stressful and dangerous situation (and the same applies to men) I don't see a gun as being useful in a suprise, stranger attack with the purpose of rape. Most women are too timid to pull the trigger and don't know how to prevent the weapon being taken from them when being over powered by an assailant. I would say a woman is better off learning self-defense because it will teach her to walk with confidence, avoid potential, bad situations and how to handle herself under pressure filled, dangerous situations. This will help her look like a less likely victim to the predator, and therefore be less likely to be assaulted. Predators choose victims that appear to be easy targets. Your best defense is not to be an easy target. If a woman can be trained properly and has the confidence to handle carrying a concealed weapon I wouldn't have a problem with that. Even then I would HIGHLY recommend self-defense training in conjunction with proper weapons handling. This will help her in potential acquaintance rape and stranger rape/assault situations. Honestly, I think every woman should become proficient in self-defense because we are all too often targeted for victimization (as well as socialized to be polite, lady like and timid.) Brighid

07-17-2003, 06:50 AM	#28
Purple Smartie Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 46	I think education is the best form of protection against nearly everything in life, from HIV/AIDS infection to rape situations. If you know how to avoid potentially dangerous situations, know how much alcohol is too much for you personally to retain control, know how to fire the weapon in your purse quickly and accurately under stressful conditions, you are a million times safer than a woman who doesn't know these things. Is a gun the best protection against a rapist? Realistically, unless you plan to crack him over the head with the gun, I don't think so. When a man is close enough to grab you, he's also close enough to take the gun away if you're trying to hold it and aim it between your body and his. Your best bet is to swing wide and knock him out with it, break his nose or something. Morally, I don't think it is right to have a gun and not have the proper training to use it safely. It's no different than getting behind the wheel of a car and not knowing how to drive it. In both cases, you're putting yourself and potentially innocent bystanders in danger. I think it's the general concensus that a self-defense course or other form of education is the best, and most morally sound, protection for women. And if you feel like shooting, get him in the groin. See if he ever rapes again

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.