Message from @King Bean
Discord ID: 528023598359642143
1/5 just sounds unlikely
Like, if you have 20 friends...
who are female
its a more serious crime than breaking into a house, which is a felony. imagine 1/4 people having their homes broken into
it just seems too high
For starters, anyone who hasn't seen Cassie's Harry Crouch interview probably should watch it
he starts going through a whole bunch of misleading and false statistics
At 7:17 of the same video he says " Just women. Just women I guess? That never happens to a guy harassing -- that guy never gets harassed at work. Turning off alarm call that's serious.
Turning off a wall clocks making them late meeting them before a job interview but only women that never happens to a guy. Most people would not even pick this up. I see the significance -- I think somebody mentioned the word brainwashing early on how subtle can it get. So then I say "what's the motivation?". Who are the editors of this book who had to approve these passages"
..
You see, the 1 in 5 statistic is one way, and quite often in these sorts of things it only measures the victimization of one gender
That's one of the Mary Koss tricks to creating inflated and misleading stats
right, the source is so questionablr
That and identifying something as "rape" contrary to the victim's perception
At 23:25 Crouch says " It's how they put the questions together. Do you realize a lot of the women in that study [the MS Magazine study] who said they had been raped
went back to live either date the man that supposedly raped them and a lot of a
by their own admission didn't even know was rape"
And actually just slightly before that at 22:56 he says in that video: "There's a big difference between an unscientific one unscientific study from
MS magazine in almost 2,500 academic papers and research studies from social
scientists there's a big difference and if you were to put them on a scale
which way which way do you think that scale would weight?". Cassie responds "Well they probably had scientists doing it" to which Crouch retorts "Actually they didn't, go back and look at the research."
..
That sort of methodology has been used in a bunch of actual studies though
so you have to check for that sort of thing
..
But on to actual sources, lets see if I can find something credible
According to self-reported victim data from the 2004 GSS on Victimization,
approximately 512,200 Canadians aged 15 and older were the victims of a sexual
assault in the 12 months preceding the survey. Expressed as a rate, there were
1, 977 incidents of sexual assault per 100,000 population aged 15 and older
reported on the 2004 GSS; a rate not statistically different from that of the
1999 GSS (2,058 per 100,000 population).
It is worth noting that is yearly data
not lifetime data
Because Canada doesn't have as much statistics research as the US, I find it unlikely that good lifetime data even exists for sexual assault or rape
..
Other important notes from that article:
The majority of sexual offences in Canada are of a
less severe nature. Victimization data indicate that
most sexual assaults involved unwanted sexual
touching (81%) rather than more severe sexual
attacks (19%). Among the incidents that came to t
he attention of police in 2007, the large majority
(86%) were level 1, the least se
rious form of sexual assault.
The 2004 GSS showed that sexual victimization ra
tes were dramatically higher among those aged 15
to 24, compared to those 55 and over. Additionally, ov
er half of the sexual assault victims reported to
police in 2007 were children and youth under the age of 18.
When asked why they did not tell the police about the
sexual assault, a majority of victims (58%) said
that they did not report the incident because it was not important enough.
..
Unfortunately the best I can come up with as a statistic is to extrapolate from those numbers
Anything more concrete I have would only be from police data
which just isn't what we're looking for
So what I'd suggest is 20% of that 2 in 100 yearly sexual assault are of a severe nature beyond touching
And that the yearly number should be multiplied by ~15 or so to get a lifetime rate since it drops off by age
which leaves us at 1 in 20 or so
lifetime
But that has quite the error margin since it is more back of napkin stuff than anything scientific. And my assumption that I use to jump from yearly to lifetime is woefully poor.
But as far as I can tell, lifetime data in Canada is simply not available
At least for stuff that isn't based on police reports
I think that teacher's claim is quite extraordinary