Talk:Rape apology

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon gender.svg

This Gender related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png
Editorial notes


This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

For those who think rape exonerations is some type of hoax.[edit]

Come to Dallas. Over 10 people, unless you think black lives don't matter, have been exonerated after serving decades in prison. Creating an equivalency between that and rape is retarded and detracts from this article. Both false positives and false negatives (rapes not reported or followed up on or false rape allegations, be it intentional or through false ID) is heartbreaking. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

New "apology" to add[edit]

I saw the idea used by some RL people, but also in fiction: "It's not rape if they enjoyed it - aka reached orgasm / climaxed". A summary of it: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NotIfTheyEnjoyedItRationalization Should we add the idea to the section? Imadmagician (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Possibly. More an idea from rape culture - David Gerard (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I got another one http://www.returnofkings.com/43981/what-to-do-when-she-claims-to-have-been-raped-in-the-past you guys do it... I can't stand to.... ClickerClock (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Willie Horton rape apology[edit]

Willie Horton is a sick murdering violent rapist that Michael Dukakis let free while imprisoned on life without parole for the weekends. Rather than condemning both Willie Horton for raping and Dukakis for freeing prisoners on life without parole, liberals disgustingly played the race card. They even mocked the rape victim for telling her story for the Bush campaign. Dukakis deserved to lose the 1988 election because of Horton and rape is rape regardless of the skin color of the rapist. Objective (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This shouldn't be in the crime section[edit]

It's not a crime to make excuses for rape, and that, according to your article, is the more extreme part of rape apology. I'm not excusing rape apology, I'm just saying to put in with crime is just a form of loaded language.— Unsigned, by: Kyle / talk / contribs

Racially selective rape apology[edit]

An interesting phenomenon I've noticed from online anti-feminists is that their rape apology only seems to apply to white men and they still seem disgusted by the thought of white women being raped by black or latino men. — Unsigned, by: 96.244.117.228 / talk

Rebuttal to claims of under-reported rape[edit]

This quote from RAINN is what I'm refuting.

"Out of every 1000 rapes, 994 perpetrators will walk free."

If over 99% of "perpetrators" walk free, then there wasn't enough evidence of their guilt. If there wasn't enough evidence of their guilt, then how do you know they were perpetrators? Rational Skull (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

This is the source of information that RAINN used:[1]

i. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 2010-2016 (2017);

ii. Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Incident-Based Reporting System, 2012-2016 (2017);

iii. Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Incident-Based Reporting System, 2012-2016 (2017);

iv. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009 (2013).

(This statistic combines information from several federal government reports. Because it combines data from studies with different methodologies, it is an approximation, not a scientific estimate. Please see the original sources for more detailed information. These statistics are updated annually and as new information is published.)

So if you want to dispute that, you need to come up with some better evidence than what they used. Bongolian (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
The problem with the first 2 sources is that they record accusations and arrests, not successful convictions. Therefore any stat that relies on them is skewed. You can read about their methodology here and here. Let me put it this way. Imagine if the BJS reported that 994 out of 1000 creationists were physically attacked by atheists, but most of those cases lacked evidence for a conviction. Would you still believe the crime occurred?
That said, the third source you provided is excellent because it actually tracked crimes all the way up to sentencing. I say "third" because you referenced NIBRS twice. Rational Skull (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)