Slashdot Mirror
The Mathematics of 'Legitimate Rape' and Pregnancy
Hugh Pickens writes "James Hamblin, MD writes in the Atlantic that it's unclear how common the misconception that women rarely become pregnant after rape may be, but remarks by Missouri Senatorial nominee Todd Akin that 'if it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try and shut that whole thing down' (video) may provide some benefit as a learning opportunity. 'From a holistic perspective, one might hypothesize that a woman's body could respond to the extreme stress and trauma of enduring rape in such a way that she would be physiologically more likely to miscarry (or not to conceive at all),' writes Hamblin. After all there is a multi-million dollar alternative reproductive health market aimed at optimizing an environment for conception so there could be something to a theory that the other, much darker end of that spectrum functions analogously. But that hypothesis doesn't hold, to any relevant degree. A widely-cited 1996 study from the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology sampled over 4,000 women and found that the rape-related pregnancy rate was 5.0 percent and studies from other countries have reported the percentage to be even greater."
The whole reason that this comes up is because you get guys, who ignore facts and place their bias out there are the truth. This is why you get Kentucky trying to get rid of evolution, stupid senators making dumb comments about rape. Throw in the good ole-boy network of reenforcing stupidity (on basically anything) we get these stupid statements and stupid laws.
Presumably James Hamblin is an older white male. He seems to be missing the point here. The problem with the statement isn't that it's factually / scientifically inaccurate. The problem is the term "legitimate rape." The senator's statements (if taken with any bit of truth) imply that if a women were to get pregnant in the case of rape it was not a "legitimate" or "real" rape.
This is just more from the "war on women" department. And while I don't agree with the stupid soundbite slogan "war on women" -- the disturbing trend which gives rise to it is a serious problem politically, but more important, socially.
There must also be 'illegitimate rape,' right? Send that clown packing back to the anti-woman nut house he escaped from.
The hypothesis is that women do not get pregnant through sex unless the sex was consensual, and the evidence is that in fact they do. I suppose some statistics would be involved if you wanted to do a hypothesis test. But it's not some complex mathematical model, nor hugely contested.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Yeah, the dude is a douche, no question. But even as someone totally opposite of probably everything he believes, I knew what he was saying was women forced to have sex vs those who lie about it afterwords. And what he thought might happen, as pointed out be earlier poster, isn't entirely unbelievable. If there is a market to help you get pregnant, there could be a 'mechanism' that prevents pregnancy. Possible, studied, and rejected. So he is an uninformed idiot. Beyond that there isn't much news to it, BUT in the world we live, were a company with less than 10% market share can be the most valuable company in history, there has to be something to make the news sell.
This my friends is a result of showing how easily you (the proverbial you, as a population) can be fooled into thinking something is important, when it is not. Everything you have seen on TV on this issue, is about selling commercials, nothing more. And from what I can tell, is working exactly as planned.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
This is also stuff that matters.
Doing a scientific analysis of elements in the news is always good for nerds. It's good for everyone, we need more of it.
Also, consider shit like this and this.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
When you get pregnant after rape, you either secretly liked it, or it was consentual.
The bastards the US calls politicians never seize to amaze me with their vile.
Based on no empirical evidence, I am guessing that rapes are actually more likely to lead to pregnancy than consensual sex because of modern family planning. A woman who is expecting sex is more likely to be using birth control than a woman who is raped.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
It could well be a math issue - you don't believe statistics is a good way to find out the relative probability of something?
Also, political threads = potential flamewar and lotsa page views. Even free software nerds need money.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
It is true that one common meaning of the word "legitimate" is "lawful". But another common use of the word "legitimate" is to imply merely that it actually -happened-. For instance: a legitimate arson would be one where a guy burned a building down for fun. A non-legitimate arson would be where a guy burned down a building because the owner of the building paid him to as part of an attempt at insurance fraud. Similarly,
a "legitimate rape" would be one in which nonconsensual sex was forced on someone. An illegitimate rape would be "girl pretends that consensual sex wasn't to get back at her boyfriend". Neither of those situations are pleasant, but they do both occur.
Since when is this a site for *tech* news? There are other sites that do that. This is a "news for nerds" site, and tech news is just part of that.
This "women can't get pregnant from forcible rape" meme has been around for a long time, though, and the right to life movement has been promoting this myth for years now. It has been used as an argument against emergency contraception.
This particular story is about public ignorance of science, so it may not be news *to* nerds, but it qualifies as news *for* nerds. It's not news that ignorant people believe in creationism, it *is* news when creationists use their clout to restrict the teaching of evolution or to give equal billing to creation "science". It isn't news that some people (largely the same people who push creationism) believe a woman can't get pregnant from rape. It *is* news when somebody runs for office proposing to make laws based on that superstition. It's news for *everybody*, but the nerd's special bailiwick is the science and math part.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Well, there's the little matter of that bill to restrict Federal funding for abortions, based in no small part of kinds of rape (ie. violent vs. statutory) that Akin and Ryan co-sponsored. While Ryan can't really be held to account for Akin's apparently first grade understanding of female reproduction, the fact is that both men are close allies when it comes to how the Federal government should define rape. Ryan isn't in the center of the target, but he's certainly somewhere on it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"largely for the flimsy reason that they were both cosponsors of the person-hood amendment"
that;s not flimsy.
From Ryan's historical actions, it only seems he thinks women can not be raped unless they are somehow harmed outside of the sexual intercourse part of the rape. Hitting, slapping, etc...
This is part of the rising war on women form that party; which stems from the religion rights belief that women are second class citizens.
AS an FYI: Mormons also believe women are 2nd class citizens.
*For brevity.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
But it is a math issue. Akin has made the claim that somehow women who are raped can fend off pregnancy. So, there is a solid claim here that can be investigated, and before one starts pondering the means by which women can prevent rapists' sperm from fertilizing their ova, it seems useful to investigate the rates of pregnancy from rape.
Actually, what I find interesting is that I've read in various places that the odds of pregnancy from a single act of coitus is somewhere around 5%, so if 5% for rape is the statistic, then, from a purely biological point of view there is little difference in fertilization rates between consensual unprotected coitus and forced coitus.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It should matter to nerds and anyone else that a man who displays such little care of concern for the nature of reality is a member of the House and seeking office in the Senate of the United States. He represents a constituency the neither understands basic science nor believes that it is necessary to do so in order to make decisions that will govern your personal and professional lives.
Listen to what he is saying, and imagine the implications. A woman is raped... she is forcibly inseminated & the embryo is viable. In this twit's world (and that of others who want to force their 'values' on you) she would have no right to seek an abortion of this undesirable pregnancy. Period.
Furthermore, he's implying that he's been informed by doctors that, "there are ways the female body has of shutting this thing down." First of all, he doesn't understand basic biology. Secondly, he's sadly misinformed about the nature of the rights of the individual. Third, if this is the kind of leadership you want to see in Congress and you're a geek, how do you think it's going to effect your ability to seek federal funding for any research that runs afoul of the whims of a such a zealot?
If you still think it doesn't matter, then move to Missouri and see if can help Akin in his quest, but don't expect to be able to discuss science openly for fear that you'll be expelled from his inner sanctum of trusted keepers of the supreme knowledge.
From the NIH
CONCLUSIONS: Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence.
Offer up your own daughter for sacrifice, Mr. Akin, but keep your simplistic, religious immorality out of my life!
I'm reluctant to feed the troll, but it needs doing:
Seconded. While nobody should doubt that women can use sex as a women from time to time, EVERYBODY should doubt, for lack of evidence, that this phenomenon is discursively significant when set beside the shockingly common, underprosecuted, and yet extremely serious crime of rape.
Meanwhile, there is an embarrassment of evidence about the prevalence of rape and the ways in which our criminal justice system and society at large do not take the problem seriously enough. This social problem is caused, in very large part, by efforts to discredit and embarrass victims with much the same rhetoric as the GP's. So if, when confronted about a story about someone not taking rape seriously enough, your response is something like the GP's, you are either ignorant of the very well known facts, a cretin, or have your head way up your ass. Probably all three.
caritj.org
I agree for the most part, but the world is not black and white. Here's a little hypothetical thought experiment:
A teenage man (say, 19, so above majority age) goes to a party, which involves alcohol. He gets drunk enough to become sufficiently intoxicated to black out the evening. He wakes up in his bed at home, after being dropped off by friends. 3 months later, a girl who was at the party claims a paternity suit against him for her now 3rd month pregnancy, the test shows positive. he does not remember giving consent, and does not remember the woman at all.
Now, Flipside.
A teenage woman, (Say, 19, so above the age of majority), goes to a party which involves alcohol. She gets drunk enough to be sufficiently intoxicated to black out the evening. She wakes up at home in her bed after being dropped off by friends. She has semen stains in her panties. She does not remember giving consent, and promptly makes use of a female hotline to report her "rape."
These situations are essentially identical, however the female's view holds more gravity than does the male's. Contrary to what many feminists might claim, a non-consentual pregnancy and subsequent child support mandate can ruin a man's life, just as much as the unconsentual pregnancy itself can ruin a woman's. In both cases, informed consent could not be considered a given, because both were heavily intoxicated. This makes both instances fall de-facto under the umbrella of rape.
Both cases have identical themes: A person is encouraged by the party to become intoxicated, and is then taken sexual advantage of while judgment is impaired. That is straight up rape.
Why is it then, that men in this circumstance are more frequently saddled with being the SOURCE of the rape, and denied protections as a victim of rape, while women are more frequently granted the protections of being the victims of rape, while men are saddled with the blame for such rape?
I would say it is because of cultural bias, and double standards; women are percieved as more vulnerable, (when both are equally vulnerable to alcohol and other drugs), and thus requiring the stronger protections. Men are conversely considered to be "stronger", and being raped in this way is even culturally approved of in a disturbingly sick fashion.
I really do believe that it is possible to have a no-fault rape case. Both participants get smashed and fuck like rabbits while out of their minds, and assert they would never have consented to the sex while sober. How does the law react to such a circumstance? Does it punish both victims for their over-indulgences? Who pays child support?
See the problem?
... is that the Republicans are hosed this November if they continue to double down on all of this.
And this is one of their central tenets on rape, that there is "legitimate rape" and "well, it's not rape-rape, because she had an orgasm" or "she deserved it because she dressed like a slut and forced the weak spined guy to rape her." It is so central to the "pregnancy as punishment for moral failing" in fundie circles that they will not relinquish this point. Because to relinquish it means they could be wrong on other things about pregnancy and abortion too. It's a point of faith held very deeply.
Which is why the GOP platform calls for a constitutional ban on abortion with no exceptions for rape.
But don't you dare call it a war on women. Right? *spit*
So get the popcorn, and find your favorite chair, because this is going to be an epic amount of derp.
--
BMO
I'm not a member of the GOP, but I think it speaks volumes when those in charge of the party denounce and even take efforts to derail the campaign of somebody who says something so stupid. In fact, it seems they always do this. Mark Foley, Larry Craig, etc, all examples of people who
I've only been old enough to participate in two elections, but I haven't voted democrat in either of them, because they have never demonstrated that kind of integrity. Ted Kennedy killed somebody and rather than serve time in jail he served time in the US senate for the rest of his life. And that's not even the worst, when Dan Crane (R) and Gerry Studds (D) both admitted to having sex with teenagers on literally the same day, Dan Crane was kicked out of office by the GOP, whereas the Democrats kept Gerry Studds in office until he retired 12 years later.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
To be fair, that's not true. I find his remarks more abhorrent because of the underlying thesis:
Akin's argument is essentially that when a woman is "legitimately raped" i.e. doesn't want to have sex with the man forcing himself on her, there can be no pregnancy. Therefore, whenever a rape victim gets pregnant, she actually wanted to have sex with that man, so it wasn't "really" rape, because secretly deep down she wanted it. Therefore, since she wanted to have sex, she should be responsible for the product of that act -- the baby. And thus, its okay to put her in jail if she aborts the rapists baby.
That's why the Republicans have been out there trying to split hairs between "rape rape" "forcible rape" "legitimate rape" and the term us commie hippie pinkos use (i.e. RAPE). Because, as any republican pastor could tell you, deep down that every feminist secretly wants a good round of "illegitimate raping" at least once a year.
One of many reasons why I am a devout evangelical atheist is because of all the Ten Commandments int he Bible, God chose not to outlaw rape. The Christian God apparently chose " Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." as a more important rule to lay down than "Thou shalt not rape." Rape has been used as a form of violence and control since the beginning of recorded human history, and in fact it has only been within the past hundred years that it has been seen as the true horror that it is in modern society, and this is IN SPITE OF religious dogma, not because of it.
God could have chosen to make it perfectly clear that this was one of the most evil sins that could be committed and should be outlawed under all circumstances. But the God presented in the Bible, and in the Koran, chose not to.
This is one of the reasons why I'm an atheist.
Your "couples wanting to conceive" group will disproportionately sample less-fertile couples, as the most fertile couples will already have kids.
paintball
Shouldn't an atheist say "those ancient dudes who made up the Bible chose not to..."?
Just sayin'
I know this sets the requirements pretty high, but I think it's reasonable to expect our lawmakers to investigate what the legal distinction between "rape" and "forcible rape" is, and vote accordingly. Ryan was either not educated enough to do so, which is a character flaw - or he understood the distinction and chose to support "only forcible rape" provisions intentionally, which is damning.
But it is a math issue. Akin has made the claim that somehow women who are raped can fend off pregnancy. So, there is a solid claim here that can be investigated, and before one starts pondering the means by which women can prevent rapists' sperm from fertilizing their ova, it seems useful to investigate the rates of pregnancy from rape.
This is exactly it. The "big deal" isn't that a conservative thinks there is some sort of magic that God put in women to prevent unwelcome pregnancy (conservatives believe all kinds of ridiculous things so this is not a shocker at all). The big deal is that Rep Akin was appointed to the Committee on Science, Space and Technology in the U.S. House. This obviously puts him in a position to influence the nation's policy toward science, and since he is clearly a firm disbeliever in science as a whole it is really important that as many people know about this tragic mismatch as possible.
An excellent observation. It's absolutely fascinating to me that the GOP's social conservative line isn't all that far from the hard-line Islamist line that a female victim of rape somehow actually was responsible for that rape and really it's more a situation of fornication, rather than violence.
There are some truly disturbing people filling up the hard-right ranks of the Republican party, and considering that Paul Ryan is a co-sponsor of amendments that seem to stem from this very kind of thinking, it certainly shines a new light on Ryan as well.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Men can subconciously detect women who are at the fertile point of their cycle, among other things men find women more sexually attractive. The obvious (to me anyway) hypothesis is that rapists are more likely to attack women who are ovulating.
No, GP is saying that the 7th and 10th commandments forbid you from coveting your neighbor's possessions, and unmarried women were considered one of those possessions. So if you covet your neighbor's 18 yr old unmarried daughter, you are breaking these commandments. GP makes a the jump that raping someone is an extreme form of coveting them, and so is covered under these commandments.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
A lot of the problem is that it's hard to determine the truth in a lot of rape cases, and our system is supposed to err on the side of the accused. The US criminal justice system sets "beyond reasonable doubt" as its standard. In a lot of alleged rape cases, it's the victim's word against the accused's, which is pretty much impossible to prosecute.
As for which is more common, rape or false rape accusations, I have absolutely no idea and don't want to touch that issue with a ten foot pole. I think they're both serious crimes, at the very least.
Cite your study so the rest of us can read it. I call bullshit.
caritj.org
See, I'm an engineer. A scientist. What's in a name? "Legitimate" in that context is just as good as anything else. Of course, it is an unfortunate term politically. And, I am well aware of political agendas fueled by pesudo-science.
The term may be inflamatory, but such things sometimes are useful to draw attention to the rest of one's argument, whereupon it can be considered in the whole on its merits.
I do think the term "rape" has been diluted to the point of being rediculous. There is a difference between consensual sex between minors, women who lacked dimished capacity through their own voluntary consumption of alcohol, those who changed their mind right in the middle of the "main event", and those that are grabbed, manhandled, stripped, penetrated, and quite possibly beaten within inches of their lives. I grew up with the last of these as the mental image of rape. All the others might very well be exploitation, assault, even sexual assault, sleazy and wrong, but they do not rise to the same level of violence, depravity and the body's possible reaction. I might even be so bold as to suggest that if the evidence does not support the hypothesis, perhaps the rapes studied were not "legitimate enough" to use the author's own vocabulary.
I would further suggest this: the ever-increasing set of actions which get included under the legal umbrella of "rape" are likely part of a misandrist agenda to create in the mind the image of the most violent act above so as to encourage a "guilty if accused because the crime is so horrible" societal bias. "No" is no, and wrong is wrong, but to vigorously prosecute those who's actions barely meet the legal definition, in circumstances often lacking mens rea, because they are easy pickings, while avoiding the harder prosecutions, in order to pack prisons-for-profit, is a greater injustice to women (and people in general), than an inappropriately chosen adjective.
In Liberty, Rene
Do you really think that male contempt for women is so high in the West that they'd dismiss rape claims out of hand?
Also, yes. You just did, in very elaborate fashion.
caritj.org
No, that statistic is in line with my personal experience. But you have to know a woman pretty well before she'd tell you if she'd been raped, so it's likely that you just don't know how many of the women you know have been raped. The statistic is not bunk at all, and I'd strongly encourage you to learn more about this subject.
Sooooo.... you took the following data:
1.5-10%, 2-8%, 2%, 2%, 3%, 3-31%, 3.8%, 5.9%, 8%, 10.3%, 10.9%, 11%, 11.8%, 18.2%, 20%, 22.4%, 24%, 41%, 41%, 45%, 47%, 90%
and reached the conclusion that it's 10-50%? Looks to me like the median is 11%. If you want to discount older studies and you look at only more recent studies, say 2000 and later:
3%, 5.9%, 11%, 11.8%, 41%
Median is also 11%. In short, approximately only one in nine rape accusations is false. But you better believe that rape victims get smeared almost every time based on the assumption that they're lying, and fear of this is one of the main reasons that keeps people from coming forward most of the time.
Freeze Ray. Tell your friends.
* "...women can use sex as a WEAPON..." of course. Oops.
Oh, that makes so much more sense now. Glad you cleared that up.
"Sex as a WEAPON" like "I stab you with my sex?" "I blow you up with my sex?" "I shoot you with my sex?" Oh, wait, I see, a man assaults a woman and she was using sex as the weapon, he was just the innocent victim of the attack. Got it.
I totally understand this. It's like me (a rich person) using money as a weapon. I have something other people want, so they beat me up and take it. All my fault, I was using it as a weapon, and they were the victim of the weapon.
Sheesh, unless you are missing an eye due to a vicious hard nipple attack, seek professional help if you think sex is ever a weapon.
So you're not a feminist? You don't believe in equality?
I agree that everyone should be treated equally, but they are not, and the laws that seem to favor women clearly illustrate male privilege, otherwise there wouldn't be an imbalance and there would just be human laws.
"Most gender issues are utter bullshit. What if I treat a female..."
And you just played your hand: you've never, ever attempted to understand gender issues, otherwise you'd never say something this ignorant. You might as well be commenting on a neurosurgery discussion group. The fact that you would whine about laws not being equal demonstrates you still haven't made the realization of your privilege yet.
Part of your confusion is that you are benefitting from male privilege but don't realize it. One of the hardest realization for any privileged group to come to is that they are in fact privileged. I'm going to do a horrible job explaining this to you, but the first reaction any privileged group has when hearing it is violent denial. So I'm not going to explain because I have trouble getting my ideas across.
Basically, men run the world and treat women like shit -- everywhere and for all time except for the last 100 years where privilege is being explored seriously -- and I'm sure you're seething right now to tell me how wrong i am... then laws try to correct this imbalance. If men weren't the default institution of power, laws would have less appearance of bias.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested