Political Cartoons

America has a 'see no evil, hear no evil' policy when it
comes to rape, and it is the will of the Lord.

From:

This is false, arguably offensively so. Rape is considered such a problem in society that many campuses have moved to a preponderance of evidence standard of "proving" sexual assault occurs. Far from see no evil, hear no evil, the assumption is that, if someone claims they've been sexually assaulted, they were sexually assaulted.

We do have a problem with the public perception of male sexual assault victims to a point, but this is not a productive venue for that discussion.

From:

You mean frat rapes aren't as common as they used to be, really?
Yes, rape is understood to be an evil thing, but this why we tend
to go in denial and say it wasn't really rape, burying a lot of genuine
rape cases. You can google the string of recent rape cases which
fall off the radar because big college athletes did it - see no evil,
hear no evil.

From:

Rape has been on a steady decline (http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4594) for a while now, even while we encourage reporting more. And more things are recognized as rape that weren't before.

Needing proof is not the same as falling off the radar.

From:

If the situation has been improving over the last twenty years,
that would be something to consider, though I cannot tell how
the study deals with unreported rapes, so that this may muddy
the waters and muddy debates.

Here is a slate of statistics that don't look so rosy:

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

Far from see no evil, hear no evil, the assumption is that, if someone claims they've been sexually assaulted, they were sexually assaulted.

Not exactly, right? You then say: "Needing proof is not the same as falling off the radar." So, it's not just a matter of claiming one has been assaulted.

Edited Date: 2013-12-13 06:46 pm (UTC)

From:

Right, you'd think by listening to the advocates that there are more rapists than ever, that a mathematically impossible amount of rapists exist, and that things haven't improved, we just report rape less even though it's more acceptable than ever to report rape. We have to use our heads a bit.

Not exactly, right? You then say: "Needing proof is not the same as falling off the radar." So, it's not just a matter of claiming one has been assaulted.

My fault for clarity purposes, as I was making a statement first about societal reception, and then legal.

From:

Right, you'd think by listening to the advocates that there are more rapists than ever, that a mathematically impossible amount of rapists exist, and that things haven't improved, we just report rape less even though it's more acceptable than ever to report rape. We have to use our heads a bit

I think you may be too dismissive. We do have to use our heads. Sex and rape are such personal topics that it may be too cavalier to rely only on official statements, particularly if we are using the modern, all-conclusive definition of rape (date and acquaintance assaults). Precisely because we like to think of rape as evil, we may be dismissive when we are confronted by the reality that it is your average good-guy Joe who may force his drunk friend into sex, and if he has any social status, we then talk harder about proof - like it never happened. There is a lot of fog and smoke here, so that, again, it is a debate. This isn't about how you know the reality while we are muddled in social-justice warriorism or plain malcontented dumbness.

From:

Except when we simply accept "1 in 4" or assume that rape is a bigger problem now when no statistics back it up...

From:

usekh.livejournal.com

Reporting it is still incredibly difficult to do, for a variety of reasons.
(anecdotal example http://sexologist.tumblr.com/post/69181120051/i-accompanied-someone-to-the-police-station-to-report-a)

From:

This is false, arguably offensively so.

Its changing, but it is a real thing.

the assumption is that, if someone claims they've been sexually assaulted, they were sexually assaulted.

We're that as true as you claim, it wouldn't readily occur to you to call it an assumption.

People fake being sick, but the deception works because really people often get sick. People fake being poor, but the deception works because they really are other poor people. People accept accusations of rape because men really do rape.

From:

People fake being sick, but the deception works because really people often get sick. People fake being poor, but the deception works because they really are other poor people. People accept accusations of rape because men really do rape.

More that people accept accusations because it's assumed that the accusations are true.

From:

More that people accept accusations because it's assumed that the accusations are true.

The reason for that assumption is that rape is a thing that really happens. Enough to substantiate the bias.

I mean, if it were a thing that never ever happens, like Walking on Water for example, no one would ever seriously believe it happened, right?

From:

The problem, again, is the assumption of guilt. No one doubts that rape happens and exists. The issue is the presumption of guilt by society in general.

From:

Men have dug a hole for themselves in that respect.

From:

It appears that Jeff would favor a restoration of the presumption of innocence - a man is presumed innocent of rape when he is accused - even when it comes to the degree to which we acknowledge the potential existence of the problem. Let's only count bona fide and proven instances of rape, please!

From:

telemann.livejournal.com

More that people accept accusations because it's assumed that the accusations are true.

Yeah, that is a especially ironic, given Jeff's previous statements about voter fraud.

From:

Hm. Well, I think some care should be taken here.

If I recall correctly, Jeff's claim is that we should take a certain approach on voter fraud because, despite the lack of an adequate empirical record on its existence or non-existence, it is an important enough issue to try to tackle through regulation. On the other hand, Jeff's claims on the exaggeration of the problem of rape in our society derive from his issues with the research on problem. He says, in other words, that there is an empirical record on rape, but it overstates the problem, so he extrapolates an appropriate stance relative to the so-claimed "overstatement."

On the surface, the two cases are distinguishable. I even think the rationale that Jeff embraces regarding voter fraud makes a certain amount of sense, even if (in Jeff's case) it really masks an unsupported assumption about the rate of voter fraud. (His chosen argument for cracking down on voting fraud also helps him to avoid the usual counter-point, which is that voting fraud prevention measures inevitably deny people access to the franchise. By focusing on the normative, when it comes to whether to prevent voting fraud, he tries to avoid this empirically-demonstrable counterpoint to his preferred policy, while at the same time he believes it enables a normative counter-argument - specifically, that it's up to people to ensure that they have their own access, etc., etc. Basically, it's a policy argument that relies on normative arguments only when and insofar as it serves Jeff's ultimate point. But enough on that here.)

Jeff's point on the issue of rape is a little more problematic, and, I believe, internally inconsistent. The arguments he makes, about certain headline figures that he chooses to focus on (because he has well-developed counter-points to them), are that they're based on counting too many instances of sexual contact as "rape," they rely on spurious extrapolations of "true" rates based on reporting ("spurious," it should be noted, based on Jeff's assessment of their plausibility; he has cited no evidence in this regard that I've seen), and other methodological flaws. Now, if all of those arguments are valid, that would give us a basis for rejecting the claims of those studies, which Jeff does. But he also implicitly accepts them as essentially valid, since he extrapolates from these problematic studies a conclusion about what is true about the world and the occurrence of rape.

In other words, he takes two approaches to empirical studies as sources of epistemic justification. On voter fraud, he accepts that faulty or inadequate empirical evidence provides no support for any empirical assertions about the actual occurrence of voter fraud, so he makes his argument normatively. But on rape, he seems to treat faulty and inadequate empirical evidence as support for an empirical assertion that contradicts what that empirical evidence purports to demonstrate. (The latter is, in essence, an instance of denying the antecedent, a classic logical error.)

From:

Now, to be sure, we could accuse Jeff of simply being confused about his approach to epistemic justification. And I am sure we know exactly how he would defend his de facto, under-considered approach to epistemic justification: "I'm confident that I'm right, thanks," with nothing further in the way of even describing what he's doing, much less justifying it to any of us. But I think the issue with "Jeff on rape" is actually closer to the surface.

I think what he's doing, when it comes to the studies that suggest that rape is more prevalent than he thinks it is, is accepting the studies, at least insofar as they're studies of what they study. Yes, Jeff implicitly admits - rape is that prevalent, if you accept what they call "rape" as rape and that the rationales for their extrapolations are defensible. Jeff simply chooses not to accept those terms or those rationales - rape is something else. That's all.

Now - the reason he never puts it that way is that (1) he doesn't realize this is what he's doing and (2) he prefers to cast his argument as not a metaphysical or methodological one - i.e., focused on what constitutes "rape" - but as a purely empirical one. That's where he feels his counter-arguments are strongest, and he doesn't have to get into the SJW-trigger area of defining for women, what "rape" really is. But I think the only way we can make sense of what he says is to conclude that he is, indeed, taking a position on what "rape" really gets to be.

From:

I remember, back when a female friend of mine confided in me that she'd been raped by her on-again, off-again boyfriend, my immediate reaction (along with a mutual friend, who was also party to the conversation) was to go to the women's center on my campus to get advice on how best to support our friend as she decided whether it was the sort of thing she wanted to report to the authorities. I didn't once think to question her allegations.

Boy, I sure was gullible back then!

From:

This is false, arguably offensively so.

We sure wouldn't want to offend you, now would we?

Rape is considered such a problem in society that many campuses have moved to a preponderance of evidence standard of "proving" sexual assault occurs.

Yeah, this is just flavor-of-the-day blogrolling, buddy. It doesn't demonstrates anything. It just helps to prove that you regularly read all the blogs we know you do.

Far from see no evil, hear no evil, the assumption is that, if someone claims they've been sexually assaulted, they were sexually assaulted.

Indeed, it's really the crime of false reports that we ought to worry about, amirite?

We do have a problem with the public perception of male sexual assault victims to a point, but this is not a productive venue for that discussion.

Because you don't control the levers of power here?

From:

I'm sure a serious homosexual rape campaign is a good thing, but the likely American reception to it would just depress me.

From:

We have been hearing more about it with the military scandal,
since a lot of men are apparently the victims of sexual assaults.

From:

brother-dour.livejournal.com

it is the will of the Lord

Michigan, right? Amirite?!

From: