In the National Review Online, and also on the IWF blog, IWF vice-prez Carrie Lukas critiques of Mary Koss’ groundbreaking study of rape prevalence. Lukas’ target is Koss’ finding that 1 in 4 college women has experienced either rape or attempted rape since age 14.

The one-in-four statistic… was derived from a survey of 3,000 college women in 1982. Researchers used three questions to determine if respondents had been raped: Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs? Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man threatened or used some degree of physical force… to make you? And, have you had sexual acts…when you didn’t want to because a man threatened to use some degree of physical force… to make you?

Based on women’s responses, researchers concluded that 15 percent of women surveyed had been raped and 12 percent had experienced an attempted rape. Therefore, 27 percent of women … more than one in four … were either the victims of rape or attempted rape. This is the origin of the one-in-four statistic.

Yet other data from that same survey undercut its conclusion. While alcohol surely plays a part in many rape cases, the survey’s wording invites the label of rape victim to be applied to anyone who has ever drank too much, had a sexual encounter, and then regretted it later.

Yes, that’s a concern - out of context, I’ve always found Koss’ question about alcohol distressingly ambiguous.

However, it’s not enough to express concern. We should also ask, what does evidence say? Anti-feminists have been repeating this criticism of Koss’ survey for at least 15 years, but I’ve never seen one provide a speck of evidence that the question, in the context of a survey about rape and sexual coercion, is actually misunderstood by respondents to mean “have you ever had sex while drunk and regretted it in the morning?”

In fact, evidence shows that Lukas is wrong. Researchers Martin Schwartz and Molly Leggett tested the disputed question empirically back in 1999.¹ They surveyed students with a modified version of Koss’ survey, which substituted this question for Koss’ original alcohol and drugs question:

Have you engaged in sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to but were so intoxicated under the influence of alcohol or drugs that you could not stop it or object?

If Lukas and other critics are correct to believe that Koss’ question creates a significant “false yes” problem, leading Koss to overestimate rape prevalence, then a significantly larger proportion of students would have answered “yes” to Koss’ original question than to Schwartz and Leggett’s rewritten version. So what actually happened? Rewriting the question made no difference at all - 17% percent of students surveyed by Schwartz and Leggett were found to have been raped, a number basically identical to Koss’ 15%. This proves that Lukas is wrong - Koss’ results are not caused by students saying “yes” because of morning-after regrets.

This result is unsurprising, because Koss and her co-researchers did extensive validity testing of the questions to make sure that they weren’t misunderstood. If a lot of students had misunderstood the question as referring to next-morning regrets, the question would have been rewritten early in the process. (So why didn’t Lukas mention the validity testing? For that matter, why didn’t she mention Schwartz and Leggett’s 1999 research?)

Lukas continues:

In addition, only 25 percent of the women whom researchers counted as being raped described the incident as rape themselves.

This misstates, in a subtle but very important way, what Koss’ study asked. 73% answered no to the question, “it was definitely rape” (emphasis added).

We have to consider context: we’re talking about young women, most of whom were raped by someone they knew (usually someone they were dating and had already been sexually fooling around with), who were in high school over 20 years ago, when discussions of date rape were extremely rare. It is any surprise that most of them weren’t positive that their experience was “definitely” rape?

In the real world, women who are raped - even in situations which anyone would call rape - are frequently, for whatever reason, not prepared to name what happened to them “rape,” let alone “definitely” rape. As Schwartz and Leggett noted, even among women who were physically forced or drugged into absolute helplessness - experiences that even the most determined anti-feminists will ruefully admit are rape - many or most refuse to label their experience “rape.”

What are the implications of deciding, as Lukas does, that if the victim doesn’t say it was ‘definitely’ rape, it’s not? Consider these statistics from Koss’ survey: 70% of the alleged rape victims in Koss’ study resisted by physically struggling with the man, and 84% tried to reason with him to no avail. The large majority reported having sex when they didn’t want to due to force or threat of force.

Lukas’ argument is that it doesn’t matter if the woman resisted physically, tried to reason with the man, and felt they had unwanted sex due to force or threat of force; rape isn’t defined by non-consent, it’s defined by whether or not the victim checks “yes” by the words “it was definitely rape.” Should anyone be comfortable with that logic? Should the law really be that even if someone physically holds down an unwilling woman and shoves his penis into her vagina by force, it can’t be rape if the victim, for any reason, doesn’t say it’s “definitely” rape? That must be what Lukas thinks, if she applies her logic consistently, but does it make any sense?

Lukas goes on:

The survey found that four in ten of the survey’s rape victims, and one in three victims of attempted rape, chose to have intercourse with their so-called attacker again.

This critique of Koss just restates the old “a woman who stays must not really have been abused” myth. It’s bullshit when said regarding battered women, and it’s bullshit when said regarding raped girls and women, too.

In Lukas’ fantasy world, of course a subsequent encounter - which may or may not be voluntary - proves that the earlier encounter wasn’t rape. The real world isn’t that tidy. It’s extremely common for victims of abuse to stay with their abuser for a while - certainly long enough for another sexual encounter.

Marcella at Abyss2Hope (before she started guest blogging here) addressed this, writing:

From personal experience I can speak to this paradox. My boyfriend didn’t fit the profile of a rapist as I’d been taught (a monster who snatches girls off the street) so even though what happened to me was rape, I couldn’t accept that he meant to treat me that way. I couldn’t accept that the guy who had been in my life nearly my whole life and who was one of my brothers’ best friends could be a rapist.

Looked at without understanding, people could think I decided to have intercourse with my boyfriend again. I did no such thing. It took a second rape (when I was still in shock from the first rape) before it began to sink in that the first time hadn’t been a fluke. He hadn’t mistaken the signals of non-consent.

Two rapes by the same person don’t cancel each other out or imply consent.

If you still don’t understand, think of it this way:

On the positive side of the scale I had 10 plus years of fun when this guy was around.
On the negative side of the scale I had less than 1 day of unimaginable pain and betrayal.

(I really recommend reading Marcella’s entire post).

Finally, Lukas concedes that “Another study…. found that one in eight American women … about 12 percent … had been victimized.” She makes it sound like this study stands alone. In fact, study after study after study - including major studies by the federal government - have found that between 10% and 18% of American women are raped at some point in their lives. These studies have used a variety of methods, worded the questions in various ways, and in some cases used extensive interviews to confirm that the questions were not misunderstood. There is no longer any legitimate argument over this matter; Koss was right to say that there is a great deal of “hidden rape” unmeasured by FBI and official statistics, and her anti-feminist critics were wrong to accuse her of deceit and exaggeration.

In social science, replication is considered the strongest evidence; if a finding is replicated by independent studies using various methods, it is considered strong. Koss’ findings, by this standard, are strong. This is a settled question. Rather than continuing to slandar Koss and distort her findings, the IWF should throw its political weight behind rape-prevention measures, such as anti-rape education aimed at middle schoolers.

In Marissa’s comments, Just Another Disenfranchised Father wrote:

However, I think that the point of Lukas’s article was not to suggest that going back to the purported rapist means that a rape has not taken place. I think she, and Christina Hoff Sommers, are pointing out the intrinsic inconsistencies of the survey which resulted in the 1 in 4 statistic and this makes that statistic suspect.

This makes no sense. If Lukas doesn’t believe that future sex encounters establish that all prior sex encounters were consensual, then where is the “intrinsic inconsistency”? The two things are inconsistant only if you believe that in a large majority of abusive relationships, the abused party leaves the abuser immediately after any case of serious abuse; but we know that’s not the case.

PLEASE NOTE
Comments for this post are open only to feminist and pro-feminist posters. Non-feminists may respond to the identical post at Creative Destruction.

1. Schwartz, Martin D. and Molly S. Leggett (1999), “Bad Dates or Emotional Trauma? The Aftermath of Campus Sexual Assault,” Violence Against Women 5(3): 251-271. (back)

As always, check out Justice4TwoSisters, the blog dedicated to coverage of this case.

Many of the following links I found through either Justice4TwoSisters or Abyss2Hope.

Rachel’s Tavern: Survey Shows Race Has Strong Effect on Believing Victim; Sex Does Not

Males were slightly more likely than females to believe the rape occurred. An overwhelming number of black respondents - - 72 percent - - believed that a rape occurred, while just 27 percent of whites agreed. Fifty-six percent of whites did not believe the rape accusation, with only 15 percent of blacks agreeing.

Newsweek Cover Story on Duke Rape Allegations
Pretty good accounting of all the known facts and claims (up to the time the story was written, anyhow).

Abyss2Hope: More About College Stripping

I find it interesting that the men actively involved in stripping (if you’re a customer, you are involved) are seen as making acceptable choices while women involved in stripping are seen as making unacceptable choices.

Cash Michaels: High-Tech Lynching of Alleged Victim Intensifies

Black Looks: Black Women’s Bodies

We return then to the belief that when it comes to rape and sexual assault, women bring it on themselves. It is their rape rather than the man’s or men’s rape. If and a big if hangs over both cases in the minds of many, the women were in fact raped, then they have only themselves to blame. One an exotic dancer and single mother and the other a HIV+ woman with a sexual history. The story does not change. It is always about the woman being raped but never about the man or men who are doing the raping.

Black Commentator: Rape on the intersection between race and sex

Though some have downplayed the significance of race in this case ““ violence against women is violence against women ““ the intersection of race and gender is palpable. As Greg Garber notes in his fine coverage of the case for ESPN.com (”Turbulent Times for Duke and Durham,” 3 April 2006), the default request for exotic dancers at mainstream escort agencies is for white women (preferably blonde and big-breasted). Thus in all likelihood, regardless of what happened inside of 610 N. Buchanan Blvd, the young men were hoping to consume something that they felt that a black woman uniquely possessed. If these young men did in fact rape, sodomize, rob, and beat this young woman, it wasn’t simply because she was a woman: but because she was a black woman.

Hugo Schwyzer: Some Thoughts on Gang Bangs and “Proving It”

The thrill of the gang bang — or gang rape, which is different — is not the sex: it’s the audience. Pardon the vulgarity: but the real payoff is not to fuck, but to be seen fucking.

Feminist Law Professors: This is Why Rape is Underreported

BlackProf.com: What Isn’t Being Discussed

The one aspect of the case where there appears to be no controversy…that several of the young White men shouted racial slurs at the two Black exotic dancers…seems to have fallen off the public and media radar.

Time Magazine: Why the Cabdriver’s Testimony Could Help the Prosecution
Who knows how it’ll turn out; but according to this article, the cabdriver’s testimony - presented as an alibi by one of the defendants - may discredit the time stamps on the photos, which have also been presented as proof of innocence. I don’t want to make too much of this story, but I think it’s a good example of how it’s hard to form a judgement about the meaning of evidence based on only hearing one side’s arguments; and now that the DA has (thankfully) stopped blabbing to the press every second, the only side we’re hearing from is the defense.

TalkLeft: The Impropriety of the DA’s Comments
I’m not a fan of the D.A.. I appreciate that he’s pursuing the case - although I wonder if he would have if there hadn’t been so much activist interest - but I don’t have a lot of faith that he’s pursuing it in a competent fashion, or that he’s arrested the correct men. And a lot of his early interviews felt like glory-hounding to me.

Slate: Be Careful What You Think You Know

One might hope that all this evidence, and the unambiguous legal charges, would lead to reasonable legal inferences and unequivocal legal conclusions. But that is where we’d be dead wrong. Because the so-called objective “evidence” currently being meticulously weighed and evaluated by the media is no more “objective” or “conclusive” than the rank speculation by the pundits. Everything we are hearing about the DNA tests and the photos is selective, secondhand, and anecdotal. We are being played by the lawyers, with leaks and well-chosen sound bites.

CNN: Interview with Essence Reporter
Some really useless speculation about Mary Doe’s psychological state here. But I’m linking to it because of the really distressing news that Mary Doe is virtually on the run, moving with her kids from undisclosed location to undisclosed location every few days, and worried about threats she’s received. This is one reason rape is an under-reported crime.

Lisa Bloom: Is This Any Way To Resolve A Rape Case?

We need a system we’d encourage our daughters to use if, God forbid, they were a rape victim in a high-profile case. Making it to trial should not be only for the strong and well-funded. If the law is to protect even women with criminal records, low incomes and complicated histories from rape, then the system needs to step up and protect women like the Duke accuser, who, after all, did only what we tell sexual assault victims we want them to do: Report immediately, have the rape kit done at the hospital, and don’t grant any media interviews before trial.

Pinko Feminist Hellcat: Duke Rape Charges Bring In The Business

Ilka Damon: Rush To Judgment

The next time I encounter some tool in a comments thread cautioning against a rush to judgment in the Duke lacrosse rape case–and I must say, I have never read so many cautions against a rush to judgment in my life, about anything–I’m going to ask them to tell it to LaShawn Barber, who pronounced the whole affair a “fake rape” last week. Oh, don’t worry: LaShawn’s hopped aboard the “let’s not have a rush to judgment” train now, of course. It’s okay to rush to judgment, so long as you rush in the right direction.

Ilka Damon: Assuming the victim to be credible

I’d have to conclude that you could certainly look at the whole mess as Jill assuming these guys were rapists. I don’t see it that way. I see it as Jill assuming the victim to be credible.

NBC: What Happens To Reported Campus Rapes That Aren’t National News

Trash Talks Back: Not Okay, Not Rare

The thing is this: I don’t think it’s OK to say that what happened with the Duke lacrosse dipshits is rare. It’s not an isolated thing. Rape happens on college campuses A LOT. And rape happens to adult dancers A LOT. It’s a total logical fuck-up, the way this thing is being spun.

Inmyhumbleopinion: About that drunk driving conviction
The smear-the-accusor crowd sometimes says that Mary Doe once tried to run over a police officer. In this comment on TalkLeft, IMHO does a good job describing what actually seems to have happened. Drunk joyriding, yes; attempted murder, no.

NOTE: Comments are for feminists and pro-feminists only.
If you’re not a feminist or pro-feminist, you may leave comments at the same post on Creative Destruction.

Another one of the snippets from my Dissertation on Black/White Relationships. Keep in mind all of these posts are snippets of a much larger piece of work, so feel free to add to things, ask questions or give critiques. I’d love to hear feedback from people. In my dissertation, I focused on family approval of Black/White interracial relationships. The data is based on 39 interviews with people in interracial relationships (conducted individually) and 5 interviews with the relatives of some of these couples, so this is where most of the focus will be.

Clearly biracial children and views on them were a very significant feature in the process of family approval of Black/White relationships. In the interviews I conducted with Black/White couples, “concerns” about the children of Black/White couples was the most common reason cited for opposing a relative’s interracial relationship (IR), but ironically, the birth of a biracial child was one of the factors most commonly associated with an increase in family acceptance.

Before elaborating on families objections to interracial relationships, I should acknowledge two ideas that have had a dramatic impact on how people with a Black parent and a White parent are viewed. Throughout American history the rule of hypodescent and the tragic mulatto image have shaped views of biracial children. Hypodescent involved a set of laws and rules that defined anyone with as little as “one drop of black blood” to be Black; thus, the children of interracial unions were almost exclusively defined as Black (Wright 1993; Dalmage 2000; Moran 2001). The tragic mulatto ideology portrays Black/White biracial people as poor, lost souls caught in between two worlds and accepted by no group. According to this ideology, their mere existence was tragic, and they were destined to lead a life of sorrow because of their social ambiguity (Spickard 1989). Both these views are reiterated by relatives of interracial couples, especially White relatives. Several White respondents had heard negative things about biracial children well before they entered interracial relationships. However, it was not just relatives who had concerns about how biracial children would be perceived; even some members of interracial couples didn’t want to have children or were uncomfortable with having children with their spouse or partner.

Those relatives oppose to interracial relationships “for the sake of the children” feel that biracial children will suffer because they are “different.” They also believe that the child will be confused about his or her identity. People who expressed opposition to IRs also felt that interracial couples couples are seen as selfish, irrational, and unconcerned with the children’s well being, which they base on their assumption that biracial children have identity problems.

The one drop rule often comes up in interracial families because one of the primary concerns people have about such relationships is how the couple will raise their children to identify. In accordance with the one drop rule, most couples in this study tended to see their children as closer to Black. In some cases they said they would define their children as Black, and in other cases they said that their children would be seen as Black, in spite of their biracial backgrounds, something Rockquemore and Brunsma (2001) refer to as an unvalidated biracial identity. None of the respondents who had children identified them as White, and none of those who discussed biracial children referred to them as White; however, some did refer to individual biracial children as White looking, but not as White. Some couples and their families agreed (both Black and White) that the child would be treated as Black and should therefore be raised as such, but in many families racial differences emerged over how the child should be raised or identified (in terms of race). For White members of interracial couples the one drop rule was clearly racist, but for African Americans in interracial families the one drop rule was a racial reality that was part of being African American. Whites seem to prefer a biracial identity and Blacks seemed to prefer a Black identity.

Generally, the families of women, both Black and White, raised more concerns about biracial children. Given that it is women who bear children and women who are primarily responsible for raising children; it is not surprising that concerns about children were articulated more for women’s families. For White women’s relatives the general view is that children are a marker of the interracial relationship that can have a negative impact on how their daughter is viewed, but for Black women’s families the concern is less with the potential loss of privilege and more with the ability of a White male partner to understand and relate to his biracial children.

Families, particularly Black families worried about the racial makeup of the community the child will live in and the messages he or she will be given about racism. Many Black relatives were concerned about racism and/or isolation from other African Americans that a child could face if he or she lived in a predominantly White area.

Black relatives and White relatives generally had different ideas about the child’s racial identity and socialization. For some African American families, raising a child as biracial rather than Black was not seen as a challenge to the rule of hypodescent, but as a sign that the relative in the relationship or the child was (or could be) disloyal to African Americans. Given the long history of privileges bestowed on lighter skin blacks and those who could identify as “mulatto,” it is not surprising that a mixed marriage raises concerns in African American families (Spickard 1989). While white families appear to be more concerned with the loss of privilege that interracial relationships and biracial children bring, Black families are concerned about the privileges biracial children enjoy over their Black (especially darker skinned) relatives.

Although concerns about children are cited as the primary reason for opposition to interracial relationships, ironically, most couples who had children reported that the birth of a child made their families more accepting of the relationship (which is consistent with Rosenblatt et. al., 1995). Several couples talked about how happy their family was when they had children. This was especially true if the child was the first grandchild, and this phenomenon was particularly dramatic in White families who had strongly opposed the interracial relationship. Grandparents wanted to develop relationships with their grandchildren, and in some cases, grandparents began to understand more about racism by gauging others’ reactions to their grandchildren. The birth of a child may lead to greater approval because relatives see the couple following some elements of the traditional family script; moreover, it is much easier for relatives to be upset with adults than it is for them to be upset with children. While having children tended to make families more approving, it did not necessarily mean that the relationship was completely accepted or that there was peace in the family.

The question at the heart of families’ objections/concerns is how children from interracial unions and their parents will fit into the current (and future) racial order. Will they be more closely allied with African Americans? Will they develop into a unique racial group (i.e. coloreds in South Africa)? Will individual children of interracial unions have the power to create their own racial identities? Or will they be forever lost souls with no group to call home as the tragic mulatto image would predict? Although it is not possible to predict the future racial order, it does appear that the way interracial couples and their relatives talk about children with a Black parent and a White parent provides a foreshadowing of the changes that contemporary racial ideology will bring.

If you are interested in the subject of interracial marriage, I have a category at Rachel’s Tavern explicitly dedicated to this subject.

WCCO: Police: 12-Year-Old Had 0.39 BAC

Moorhead [Minnesota] police were investigating how a 12-year-old girl nearly drank herself to death. The child was taken to the intensive care unit at MeritCare Hospital with a blood alcohol level of 0.379 percent Friday evening, police said.

This story strikes a nerve since I came far too close to dying from alcohol poisoning at age 16. I was told later that the guys who poured vodka down my throat (I remember them starting to do this) dumped me in a park when they realized I was in crisis. If it hadn’t been for a couple of other guys who saw me and took me to the hospital where I had the alcohol pumped out of my stomach, I wouldn’t be here today.

The guys who nearly killed me didn’t get in trouble with the law, but I got a ticket for underage drinking. The leader of the class I had to attend missed an opportunity. With the right information about my case and some understanding of why (other than alcoholism) I might crave alcohol’s numbing effects, he would have easily learned that drinking was my attempt at self-medication. I trusted this man’s intentions and was open to getting help.

This incident happened after I started having crying jags for no apparent reason. It’s only since I read this story that I realized those crying jags started as close to the one-year anniversary of my first rape as is possible without knowing the specific date. Before I started drinking again, I called the local mental health hotline and subsequently went in for counseling. My assigned therapist focused on my relationship with my mother and failed to ask the right questions that would have told him he was seeing a rape victim. I turned to alcohol’s soothing effect again only when it became obvious to me that therapy did nothing more than bring the turmoil close enough to the surface to make me cry.

Those who would call me and those like me, “stupid” for drinking might as well call someone who has been beaten until her eyes are nearly swollen shut “illiterate” for not being able to write legibly.

A red flag should go up if someone, especially a child, suddenly starts drinking to excess. Too many people assumed my drinking was caused by nothing more than typical teenage rebellion. Those who came down hard on me for my bad behavior just multiplied my feelings that I was a horrible person. My parents were concerned, but they didn’t have any better resources than I had.

My rapist, and ex-boyfriend, knew what started me down that dangerous path, but he didn’t say a word even though he and my brothers were still great friends. Every now and then he did lecture me on my bad behavior.

I didn’t take his advice well, to say the least.

Rather than doing a lackluster job of describing the warning signs of an alcohol overdose, I’ll leave answering the following question to a Mayo Clinic expert

Q: What is alcohol poisoning? How do you know if someone has alcohol poisoning?

Note: Also posted on my blog, Posted by Abyss2hope in Feminism, sexism, etc, Rape, intimate violence, & related issues | 6 Comments »