What percentage of men sexually assault women?

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

For some reason that is a number that I have never heard.

 

I have heard ideologues arguing back and forth about what percentage of women are victims; what percentage of sexual assaults get reported to law enforcement; what role alcohol plays; what percentage of victims knew their attacker; etc.

 

However, I have never heard what percentage of men actually do it.

 

Nobody thinks that almost everybody they encounter who is a member of a certain demographic is likely a con artist, arsonist, murderer, terrorist, etc. But it sounds to me like if you are male like I am everybody now thinks that it is likely that you have sexually assaulted a girl or woman at least once in your life.

 

What is the actual scientifically established number?

[LeChat]

29 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

...I have never heard what percentage of men actually do it...

 

What is the actual scientifically established number?...

There isn't one for several reasons. One is that, obviously, not all men will be honest and openly admit to sexually assaulting a woman/women; some might have mental health issues and not remember assaulting someone, etc.

 

If there was one, the percentage wouldn't be accurate, anyway, as some men assault more than one person.

 

Studies have shown that those who've been assaulted are honest about what they went through; very few people lie about being assaulted. However, it's still underreported; so, even those numbers/percentages of those who've been assaulted, isn't accurate, either.

[Evren]

I did some realllllly rough math and got .25% however this is in no way scientific or reliable and im not great at math. (Also this is only america and only reported rapes and doesn't include any other kind of sexual abuse, and so is basically useless and I just spent way to long doing it)

I took the average amount of rape and sexual assault cases per year https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence

Used this article quoting the NCVS survey to guess that 4% of rapes are committed by women. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/

And multiplied that average amount of rapes per year by .04 in order to exclude the rapes by women for a year. Then took the total population of america that is male, and used the amount of rapes I found  divided by the total times 100 to get .25%. However there was no way to exclude children from this total ( the census only makes a difference when you're under five) so many of the people in the total population couldn't physically rape anyone, even though they are male. 

 

All of this comes back around to the fact that we don't know how many men are rapists. We know most rape is perpetrated by someone the person knows. We know that it is by far the most under reported crime. We know that lesbians get raped by their significant others just like in straight relationships. 

 

I think however even with not knowing, we know that enough are rapists. Enough that I don't go out alone after dark. Enough that I am worried when a man tries to follow me home. Enough that I have a 1 in 6 chance of being part of a attempted or completed rape. It's enough men to be afraid. 

[RoseGoesToYale]

16 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

What is the actual scientifically established number?

It's likely there isn't one, for a few reasons:

1. It's hard to know the exact rate of sexual assault of any demographic due to underreporting. Survivors of sexual assault have a lot of motivations for never reporting it, including shame, fear, confusion, or lack of reliable resources. Without an official, or even semi-official, report of some kind, it won't go into the stats (and shouldn't... it's not fair to anyone to make wild guesses based on speculation)

2. I know nobody wants to hear it, but it's the truth... false accusations do happen. In an ideal world, we would have solid definitions of sexual assault in the law books, a streamlined process for handling cases, and basically just a lot more resources dedicated to investigating the truth, and then we'd have more evidenced convictions for sexual assaults and more evidenced instances of false accusations.

3. Like @InquisitivePhilosopher said, perpetrators can lie, plead innocent, and get acquitted.

 

32 minutes ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

But it sounds to me like if you are male like I am everybody now thinks that it is likely that you have sexually assaulted a girl or woman at least once in your life.

If anybody thinks you've committed sexual assault on no basis other than your biological sex, they are being sexist. Sexual assault can be perpetrated by a person of any sex to a person of any sex.

 

It's important to note that instances where a female is the perpetrator may also be more underreported than for male perpetrators due to the way we define sexual assault, or out of ideas that women aren't capable of committing it. In cases of male victims of female perpetrators, they may never report it for fear they won't be believed or ridiculed for not being strong enough or "man enough" to stop it. There's a lot of guesstimation with the numbers.

[SithLord]

It would be difficult to calculate. Even if one used the reported amount of rapes and ignored the underreporting issue, we would need to know the assailant in order to calculate if it's one serial rapist or several one-time things. 

 

There's also false reports, as well as biased reporting. When a woman is drunk, for example, she can't consent to sex and may wake up saying she was raped if she found that she had had sex. However, if the man who had sex with her was also drunk and also couldn't consent to sex, was he also raped? Is there a rapist there?

 

I'm also assuming one isn't including statutory rape in this calculation. 

[Sally]

There isn't a way to determine that percentage, and there never will be, for the many obvious reasons cited above.   If you're looking for a defense to what you say here -- "But it sounds to me like if you are male like I am everybody now thinks that it is likely that you have sexually assaulted a girl or woman at least once in your life" -- you won't find such a defense.   And you don't need one, because it isn't trtue that everyone thinks that.  

[Guest]

What percentage of women sexually assault men? 

[InDefenseOfPOMO]

It sounds like a lot of assumptions are being made with very little or absolutely no objective, concrete evidence.

 

Some non-sexual assaults, homicides, etc. are, it seems to me, recognized by the law as non-gendered.

 

Sexual assaults, on the other hand, it seems are all treated as a gendered matter. Those of us with at least minimal literacy in gender know what that means: "the patriarchy"; male privilege; men are oppressors; women are oppressed; the sexual objectification of women by men; misogyny; etc.

 

What percentage of men actually sexually assault women? If it is less than one percent, does that sound like systematic, institutional gender relations or the deviance of a minority that has nothing to do with gender?

 

The men who are known to have sexually assaulted women, what was their motivation? Was it to enforce traditional/historic gender relations (misogyny)? In a documentary I once saw a serial arsonist reported that he started house fires to "relieve stress". What do men who are known to have sexually assaulted women report as their motive?

 

It sounds like we simply assume that it all reduces to maintaining "the patriarchy". The sexes of the perpetrator and the victim does not seem to make any difference. All sexual violence is inevitably reduced to "the patriarchy", it seems.

 

Where is the data?

 

Even if we have a lot of data, how do we interpret it?

 

Science does not happen in a social vacuum. If we attribute all sexual assault to social structure, tradition, "toxic masculinity", etc., is there any room left for the perpetrator being personally responsible? If things like the moral character of the individual criminal were emphasized, might sexual assaults be reduced?

 

Furthermore, we seem to have a particular crime being treated differently than every other crime. If someone cheats on his/her taxes and admits it, he/she will then be subject to criminal prosecution. However, nobody says, "There is no way to know the number. Nobody is going to admit to tax evasion".

 

Could this exceptional treatment of sexual assault be for ideological purposes?

 

If we want to be the liberal democratic rationalists that we heirs of the Enlightement supposedly are, a good start would be to establish an objective estimate of the percentage of the male population that actually commits sexual assault against women.

 

There is no need to include sexual assaults other than those where males are the perpetrators and women are the victims. The entire issue is a feminist issue, it seems clear to me.

 

Of course, in an ideal world we would put ideology aside and look at it completely through objective methods.

 

However, we do not live in an ideal world. Therefore, for now a scientifically-established number would be nice.

 

No such number can ever be established?

 

If no such number can be established then that means that we give men the benefit of the doubt, right?

 

The number could be less than 1%, so we don't do things like require all male students on college campuses to attend training about "consent", right?

 

Sexist? Could anything be more sexist, not to mention irresponsible, than not giving someone the benefit of the doubt when we know that we have no data that gives us reason to believe he is statistically a likely threat?

 

In cases where we do have data we pejoratively call it "profiling" to act according to that data.

 

We have no number at all--not even an estimate--with respect to males and sexual assaults against women, yet not only is it not considered "profiling" to assume that a man is a threat because of his sex, it is considered prudent?

 

Just an estimate is all that is needed. We make estimates all of the time. The age of the Earth. The age of the universe. The time span of the last ice age. Etc. I am sure that if we generously assumed the worst about every number--rapes that go unreported; every sexual assault being committed by a different person--no serial rapists; no false reports/accusations; etc.--somebody could produce a percentage.

 

What would that number be? 33% of men sexually assault a woman at least once in their lives?

[Skycaptain]

Given how the definition of various offences have changed in recent years it would be very difficult to ascertain an accurate figure. Even more so when you factor in that something acceptable in one culture is viewed as a crime in another, and vice-versa. Then there's the agenda of those promulgating statistics, it's very easy to be "selective" in gathering data so the results suit your aims. Even using court cases won't provide accurate data, as offences are often reported when there's no physical evidence remaining, so it's one person's word against another, so burden of proof may well result in the guilty being acquitted more often than the innocent being found guilty. 

Ultimately all you can accurately say is that such offences are committed. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

For some reason that is a number that I have never heard.

 

I have heard ideologues arguing back and forth about what percentage of women are victims; what percentage of sexual assaults get reported to law enforcement; what role alcohol plays; what percentage of victims knew their attacker; etc.

 

However, I have never heard what percentage of men actually do it.

 

Nobody thinks that almost everybody they encounter who is a member of a certain demographic is likely a con artist, arsonist, murderer, terrorist, etc. But it sounds to me like if you are male like I am everybody now thinks that it is likely that you have sexually assaulted a girl or woman at least once in your life.

 

What is the actual scientifically established number?

Urgh I actually found a report on sexual assault statistics (only the reported ones) that covered the percentages of both men and women who commit sexual assault, it covered heaps of different statistics taken from all over America. BUT I'm on my phone now and it was like a year ago that I had it (used it in a different thread here) so I'm unable to share it at the moment or remember what any of the stats are Y_Y if I get a chance when I'm on my comp later though I'll share it if I can find it again!

 

However, the reason women have to treat men in general with caution is because many of us HAVE had very nasty, scary experiences with random men totally unexpectedly, and it teaches us to be very cautious. Like, say you'd been mugged a few times by skinny white women with tattooed faces, that might start making you cautious every time you see a skinny white woman with a tattooed face just because you're afraid of that happening again.

 

Sadly,many men who would never hurt a woman just can't understand what it's like to have to be a woman whose experienced these kids of things, so said men feel it's unfair for us to be afraid in general while out and about in public. I do feel bad for those men who would never hurt a woman, but at the same time I wish there was a way they could understand we're just trying to protect ourselves after having already had very scary and nasty experiences just for politely returning a smile or a wave once (or for not returning a smile or a wave, because different things set different men off) :c

 

edit: oh and I don't mean that we will automatically assume you've assaulted someone, we will just be cautious out of an ingrained fear because we never know who might turn out to be nasty or not! I know it sucks, but one can blame the men who ARE jerks for scaring women to the extent that we have to be cautious of everyone initially, even the genuinely nice guys :c

[Guest]

2 hours ago, InDefenseOfPOMO said:

If we want to be the liberal democratic rationalists that we heirs of the Enlightement supposedly are, a good start would be to establish an objective estimate of the percentage of the male population that actually commits sexual assault against women.

No.

 

To get a correct estimate of that percentage, you would need a police state that would make Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia look like a libertarian utopia in comparison. Complete eradication of the private sphere, surveillance cameras in every room of every private residence.

 

"If we want to be the liberal democratic rationalists that we heirs of the Enlightement supposedly are", a good place to start would be refraining from asking questions where the price for getting an answer is too damn high.

[oldgeeza]

One assault is one too many, I am the result of my sperm donor raping my mother, there's 11 months difference in age between my sister and myself, the sperm donor also has an illegitimate son from a prostitute who is aged somewhere between my sister and myself, my mother never reported it so it doesn't get classed as sexual assault as it isn't a reported statistic, there were and probably still are many women either married or in a relationship whose partners force themselves on their partners without it being reported so that's why you don't have a full figure, let alone the women who try to blank out what's happened to them because they don't want to have to relive it in a police station or a court, it's probably a frighteningly high statistic if all incidents were to be reported

[Guest]

1 hour ago, oldgeeza said:

One assault is one too many, I am the result of my sperm donor raping my mother, there's 11 months difference in age between my sister and myself, the sperm donor also has an illegitimate son from a prostitute who is aged somewhere between my sister and myself, my mother never reported it so it doesn't get classed as sexual assault as it isn't a reported statistic, there were and probably still are many women either married or in a relationship whose partners force themselves on their partners without it being reported so that's why you don't have a full figure, let alone the women who try to blank out what's happened to them because they don't want to have to relive it in a police station or a court, it's probably a frighteningly high statistic if all incidents were to be reported

Both my kids were conceived like that sadly for them. I ran away (with our toddler) while pregnant with our second because I just couldn't take it anymore. None of the times he assaulted me over 5 years were ever reported because I was too scared of what would happen if I did, still scared to this day so would never try to take legal action for what he did to me in the past even though there are enough witnesses that he'd probably still end up in prison for a long time. But he's a toothless old man now, it wouldn't serve anyone and could just put me and the kids in danger 😕

[oldgeeza]

@Pan Ficto. (on hiatus?)I am so sorry to hear of this, it makes me feel sick if I'm honest, you're very much like my mother was, the sperm donor remarried in 1989 and moved back to his homeland of south Wales, although only a couple of hours away, my mother was frightened to leave her home for fear of running into him, she passed away in May this year, still carrying that fear that she would run into him or that he would find her, recently he had made contact with my neice whom he has never met, tried to contact my sister on Facebook, me on Skype, his brother also tried to contact my sister by letter 4 years ago, that really shook my mother up, she lived her life in fear as the sperm donor was also very violent towards us, it is both racist and homophobic, we were English and German and he always accused me of being gay after I wouldn't take him on in a fight when I was 2 years old for which I still carry a scar on my forehead, some people are just naturally evil.

[everywhere and nowhere]

I don't know the statistics, but I greatly recommend Jon Krakauer's "Missoula. Rape and Justice System in a College Town". He, of course, mentions known facts: that women very often don't report rapes because they are more afraid of secondary victimisation than of the rapist being allowed to not face consequences; that most rapes are committed by a person already known to the victim - commonly called "date rape", but it also often happens during/after parties and other social gatherings. However, if I remember well, it was also him who mentioned - in a chapter slightly detouring from the main story - his conversation with a perpetrator, which establishes some facts important from the statistical point of view.

On a slightly "more positive" note, men who have committed rape usually have done so repeatedly. It's "more positive", because it at least limits down the number of perpetrators. If five women were raped in someone's social circle, it doesn't necessarily mean that five men have committed rape. Three or even two would seem to be a more likely number.

On a much more negative note, men who have committed rape - particularly the kind called "date rape" - usually don't admit having raped a woman, refuse to recognise it as rape. For the young man to whom Krakauer had spoken during his research for the book, getting a woman drunk, or even some use of force - holding the woman down - was not yet rape.

Unfortunately, such results can be extrapolated in a very worrying way - I believe that I have already done so anyway on this forum... Generally speaking, if most rapes go unreported an a lot of perpetrators don't recognise what they had done as rape, the real number of rapes - and, therefore, also perpetrators - is higher. In some cases also women blame themselves and don't recognise what had happened as an assault, for example a lot of people - including women, including survivors - believe that if someone had consented to sex with someone else before, particularly if it's already a relationship, they cannot withdraw consent in further situations. Heck, this used to be the legal norm for marriage! In not few countries even in Europe the law has been updated fairly recently to recognise marital rape.

So what I think about the topic when I get particularly anti-male is: obviously the kind of "date rape" committed by Krakauer's interlocutor is still a minority act. Most men probably don't get women drunk to get sex and don't hold them down if they try to resist. But the worrying thought I still have is: but really, how many men have never ever coerced a woman in any way? I don't mean physical force, rather the more subtle kind still usually not even recognised as a form of violence. Such as "If you really loved me, you would agree". Or, something particularly ace-specific: "I have read about it, most asexuals have sex with their partners! Why can't you?", "You can't expect me to go without sex all my life!", "A real asexual should just not care about sex". Or, more generally, "Why is it such a big deal for you?". This kind of pressure can be often very hard to resist and in this case very often neither side recognises it as inherently coercive and something that a truly caring partner could simply never say...

[oldgeeza]

@Nowhere Girlyou also bring up a few interesting points, the fact that a woman may have consented to sex once in a relationship and it's thought that once consented it can't be refused, why? especially when it's the womans body, she has as much right to what happens to her, no more right, it's her body, her mind, her life too, sex should only be by mutual consent at that time and not assumed that once in a relationship they are "owned" and sex should be on tap.

 

There are also too many victims who blame themselves either because of the way they dressed, the amount of alcohol they consumed etc, I'm afraid that is no excuse to be attacked, ok I have no sex drive, but I still look at women and see them as attractive, I look but don't touch, that's how a respectable society should be, I remember once, I took my grandmother out for a meal for her birthday, we went for a pub lunch, we saw a young woman, probably in her mid 20's, wearing a short skirt, a bit of a skimpy top, she was very attractive, I never forget my grandmothers comment, she said "if she's not asking for trouble I don't know what is" I was quite shocked, okay, her clothing was a bit revealing, but why shouldn't she wear what she wants? if I walk around in shorts and no top, no one says anything, why? because I'm a male, if a woman walks around topless, or even breastfeeds, the stink kicked up around that is disgusting, a body is a body, does that mean all women should fear being raped when they enter a relationship or walk down the street?

[Your friend]

I think the percentage of women who sexually assault men is probably similar to the percentage of men who sexually assault women. I for one got groped by quite a few girls in high school. Female-on-male sexual assault is far more underreported than male-on-female sexual assault.

[oldgeeza]

Whilst I would agree that any type of assault, sexual or otherwise from females against males goes unreported due to the stigma attatched, when I was 19, I was in a relationship with a violent woman who damaged my eardrum and eye in an attack, that was back in the 80's, had I reported it, nothing would have been done, I would have been ridiculed by the authorities as much as those around me, my doctor was aware, even she said that nothing would have been done, my ex partner had a reputation for her violent behaviour, like many males, I wouldn't harm a woman so I accepted it though that was the end of the relationship, the lack of reporting goes both ways

[Charna]

23 minutes ago, Some guy said:

I think the percentage of women who sexually assault men is probably similar to the percentage of men who sexually assault women. I for one got groped by quite a few girls in high school. Female-on-male sexual assault is far more underreported than male-on-female sexual assault.

I doubt it, if you look at the worldwide situation. Women and girls constitute the bigger percentage by far of victims of forced marriages and sex trafficking. By comparison, if you look at forced labour, the percentages are similar for men and women.

[Guest]

All I know is that it is high, very high. 

[Your friend]

1 hour ago, Charna said:

I doubt it, if you look at the worldwide situation. Women and girls constitute the bigger percentage by far of victims of forced marriages and sex trafficking. By comparison, if you look at forced labour, the percentages are similar for men and women.

Female-on-male sexual assault is grossly under-reported. That is a known fact, and it's stupid to deny that. Forced marriage and sex trafficking are completely different from regular sexual assault on campuses, which are largely committed by women. It's just that when a man and woman have sex, the man is automatically assumed to have consented because hey, men are just horny, right? Amy Schumer admitted to having sex with a guy who was black-out drunk. She committed the exact same crime as Brock Turner and no one cared, not even feminists. Our culture trivializes female-on-male rape and sexual assault, and tries to make it look like sexual assault and sexual harassment are strictly a problem with men.

[Your friend]

1 hour ago, SpiderSquid said:

All I know is that it is high, very high. 

This is an extremely sexist and bigoted comment and you should know it. If someone made the same comment about black men assaulting white women, it would be slammed as racist bigotry. So I don't see why this should be treated any differently.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Some guy said:

This is an extremely sexist and bigoted comment and you should know it.

😂I can't name a single girl I know who has not been sexually harassed or sexually assaulted.  

[Your friend]

4 minutes ago, SpiderSquid said:

😂I can't name a single girl I know who has not been sexually harassed or sexually assaulted.  

News flash: Everyone has been sexually assaulted or harrassed at some point. LIke I said, if someone made the same comment about black men assaulting white women (don't claim that it's false, because this is based on official FBI statistics) it would be considered horribly racist. In the video 8 Hours Walking Through Manhattan (or whatever it was called) most of the men catcalling the woman were black. Now I'm not saying this to make a negative statement about black people, only to point out that you can use statistics or anecdotal evidence to demonize pretty much any group of people. It doesn't matter what group you're talking about. If it's racist to say it about black people then it's sexist to say it about men. End of story.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Some guy said:

News flash: Everyone has been sexually assaulted or harrassed at some point. LIke I said, if someone made the same comment about black men assaulting white women (don't claim that it's false, because this is based on official FBI statistics) it would be considered horribly racist. In the video 8 Hours Walking Through Manhattan (or whatever it was called) most of the men catcalling the woman were black. Now I'm not saying this to make a negative statement about black people, only to point out that you can use statistics or anecdotal evidence to demonize pretty much any group of people. It doesn't matter what group you're talking about. If it's racist to say it about black people then it's sexist to say it about men. End of story.

The question was about men sexually assaulting women soooo....... to disregard women with the excuse of everyone you disregard the entire point of it. Like saying 'oh but men get raped to' but we not discussing men but women as the victims here.

[Your friend]

16 minutes ago, SpiderSquid said:

The question was about men sexually assaulting women soooo....... to disregard women with the excuse of everyone you disregard the entire point of it. Like saying 'oh but men get raped to' but we not discussing men but women as the victims here.

You're dodging my point, which is that you made an extremely sexist and bigoted comment. What you're saying is equivalent to saying "You're disregarding white women who have been raped by black men." when someone argues against labeling all black people as rapists because statistically a majority of rapes are committed by blacks. You don't seem to understand how statistics works. The majority of women being the victim of a crime does not equate to the majority of men committing a crime. There's a small handful of men who are assholes and will harass women. Each of these men has probably harassed hundreds of women in their lifetime, which drives the number of victims of sexual harassment way up. But my main contention was that you're being a sexist bigot, and if someone made the exact same comment about black people, it would be reported as hate speech. I don't see why bigoted comments about men should be treated any differently.

[Guest]

@Some guy All I stated was the percentage is high and you are attacking me for that. I don't know why or what you issue is but you are taking a comment I made and trying to cause a war here for no reason because of your idea of what I was saying. You clearly have issues that need resolving instead of starting a war over a comment. If you don't like it be quiet. 

[Your friend]

Question: If I said that the percentage of black people who commit rape was really high, would that be racist?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Some guy said:

Question: If I said that the percentage of black people who commit rape was really high, would that be racist?

No

[Your friend]

Yeah, try telling your SJW friends that most black people are rapists, and see how they react.