A third of male uni students say they would rape a woman if there no were no consequences

[CoteDAzur]

Small sample size but still...

32% of male students polled at a university said they would have sex with a woman against her will if there were not consequences.

Surprisingly, more than half of those said they would not rape a woman

In the US.

In Dakota.

I wonder if the numbers of female students at that university have sunken since the poll was made public.

Even if the study is not representative of all men, or even all male students of that university, it does prove that there are more than twenty rapists there.

Not a place where I would want to spend any amount of time.

Jeezo. So presumably to destroy a woman's life is not a consequence in itself.

I am genuinely shocked by this, and not a lot shocks me any more!!

Considering the shocking low conviction rates there are already very few consequences

I hope the university are doing something to address it...

That's not small.

That's hideous but you know what I'm not shocked at that.

Im surprised it's not higher.

I had an ex ask if I would pretend to be a sleep while we had sex. Obviously I said 'fuck off'

I think it said 'would use force to get sex' but didn't say 'against the participants will'

Which, if that's right, would include dramatic 'throw down on bed' stuff, but consensual.

I only skim read the methods bit in the paper (which didn't include the actual full questions)

Even so the percentage saying they would rape (though the method sort of implies they didn't use that specific term to avoid social inclusive bias, the table of percentages implies they did..which is why I was looking for the questionnaire)

that percentage is still shocking even if it's just some respondents being twats for extra credit

Its important to check questionnaire s and definition s because the 1in4 stat is based on a question 'have you ever been penetrated by lips, fingers, tongue or object without explicit verbal or written consent'. Which makes an honest answer during most consensual sex to be 'yes', with a bias from people being aware it is a consent question and answering accordingly.

Does that matter nomud? Are dakotians /Americans famous rapists?

That's why this is so shocking, isn't it? It is not likely that all the rapists of that university, even, were all part of the sample.

And then there's the fact that some may not have been entirely honest - some, at the very least, would have been aware that what the question describes is rape, and would have chosen the morally superior answer even if it doesn't reflect their personality.

Exact wording in the study itself is:

Table 1. Frequency of Intentions by Item Wording
...............................................................................................YES.......................... NO
Intentions to force a woman to sexual intercourse......... 31.7% (n = 26)........ 68.3% (n = 56)
Any intentions to rape a woman........................................13.6% (n = 11)......... 86.4% (n = 70)

I think it said 'would use force to get sex' but didn't say 'against the participants will'

The only way you can use Force to get consensual sex (get sex that you would not otherwise have gotten) is by impressing someone with your competence at wielding a lightsaber.

If someone wants to be thrown down on the bed, then that's something that happens during sex, not something done "to get sex".

I don't think the question can be misunderstood that way.

I am, indeed, rather surprised that so many would openly admit that they're rapists.

I thought something similar had been done here too, where if you didn't use the word rape, but described rape using different words, quite a large percentage of the young male respondents said they would do X [rape] If there were no consequences.

Extremely worrying, bit not hugely surprising.

I actually despair

And this just makes me feel worse;

I had an ex ask if I would pretend to be a sleep while we had sex. Obviously I said 'fuck off

How and why do these men get like this? To the point they think they can have whatever they want. With no regard to the other person.

^This scale measures self-reported likeli-
hood to engage in a variety of sexual behaviors ‘‘if nobody would ever know and there wouldn’t be any consequences’’
for the participants. The behaviors that were included were heterosexual intercourse, forcing a female to do something sexual she does not want to, and rape.^

I haven't read the whole article but I gather the wording was as above, so a third said they would "force a female to do something sexual she does not want to" if no one would know and there were no consequences.

Sorry I maybe being naive but I think this can be dismissed, as you say it's a small sample size of 86 out of a student population of 15,000

It truly is despicable 13% said they would rape, but I believe many surveys show that if there were no consequences they would do a whole myriad of things. It would be more interesting and ultimately more terrifying if it was a larger and more representative sample which didn't hide behind the no consequences or hidden meaning questions. It just literally said rape or without her consent/ against her wishes.

My university in the US did a yearly sex survey In the school paper and this was a couple of years ago, it could be added onto stuff like that if it was anonymous

eeyorestails It is a small sample but not to be dismissed.

I agree with you that these particular stats are not representative but out of the small sample there was a lot, so imagine if it was the entire school population.

If the wording changed to rape I would suspect the data would not be a accurate.

If this is the study I'm thinking of, it's been repeated elsewhere with similar results.

If I get 5 minutes to myself at any point today, I'll try and dig out the article.

If I don't... carry on as if I haven't commented, sorry

I have read other studies with similar results.

What I couldn't find is what sort of questions were asked alongside.

What percentage said they would murder, steal, joyride, drink drive, set fires or commit some other felony if there were no consequences?

Because surrounding questions have an effect on answers elicited, as do other factors in methodology.

Though I agree, lots more people say they would commit a whole range of felonies when asked in a survey than is ever reflected in crime figures.

ASAS - "presumably to destroy a woman's life is not a consequence in itself"

I can't find the survey wording, but from the write-up the men were being asked to imagine a hypothetical "no consequences" scenario. If I were asked that question, I would be imagining a hyper-realistic virtual reality simulation in which the other participant was not a person, and which would be switched off immediately afterwards.

The interesting result I think is that 1 in 6 of the participants saw a difference between rape and forcing someone to have sex.

It would be more interesting and ultimately more terrifying if it was a larger and more representative sample which didn't hide behind the no consequences or hidden meaning questions.

The "no consequences" just means that those who fear the law said what they truly think and want to, though.

I do think that most understood "consequences" to mean consequences for themselves, not for their victim.

If we want to know how many men would rape if it was legal (as is and was the case in many, many countries) then the questions as asked are most useful - and the results frightening.

If someone said, 'would you murder a person if there were no consequences' then anyone but someone properly unhinged would say 'no'. This is no different, and yet people seem to bend over backwards to suggest that the men didn't mean what they said!

yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/

This page includes a similar study on naval recruits, and another on students both with cohorts of >1000. Both with similar results

They also went on to do some research around repeat offenders - and found that the men who rape, rape a lot.

They also went on to do some research around repeat offenders - and found that the men who rape, rape a lot.

If roughly a third of all men are rapists, and those who rape, rape a lot, then are those "one in four women is raped in her lifetime" numbers accurate?

They could, if we assume the rapists all go after those 25% of women ... which certainly is the case with prostitutes (i.e. the women set aside to feed the rapist-dragon so that it doesn't attack pure virgins), but would also mean that the rapists specifically go after women whom other men have victimized before. I think I read something about this being the case.

Still, the one-in-four is perhaps too optimistic and doesn't account for all cases of date rape.

She goes into some interesting analysis in the article - eg

Of the 120 rapists in the sample, 44 reported only one assault. The remaining 76 were repeat offenders. These 76 men, 63% of the rapists, committed 439 rapes or attempted rapes, an average of 5.8 each (median of 3, so there were some super-repeat offenders in this group). Just 4% of the men surveyed committed over 400 attempted or completed rapes.

She goes on to say that of the 120 admitted rapists, only 30% used force, the rest zeroed in on drunk victims and used coercion - they knew it was rape, they admitted they knew it was rape, but they used tactics that made it virtually impossible that they would be convicted. It's sickening, and certainly makes me think that 1 in 4 is likely to be an underestimate.

I consider myself fortunate that any time I've got totally legless with a bloke, they've take no for an answer, or I've had drunken, but consensual sex (and yes, women know the difference)! Unfortunately, you don't need to be drunk for a boyfriend to refuse to stop, and that has happened