The statistics below, for adult women being raped, are even higher in the U.S. military, possibly as hgh as 1 in 3, predominantly rape by fellow members of the military, where abortion is not a funded medical option - but should be.
From the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN)
1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape).1
17.7 million American women have been victims of attempted or completed rape.1
9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003.2
13 times more likely to abuse alcohol.
26 times more likely to abuse drugs.
4 times more likely to contemplate suicide.
From the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network (RAINN)
Breakdown by Gender and Age
Women
17.7 million American women have been victims of attempted or completed rape.1
9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003.2
Lifetime rate of rape /attempted rape for women by race:1
- All women: 17.6%
- White women: 17.7%
- Black women: 18.8%
- Asian Pacific Islander women: 6.8%
- American Indian/Alaskan women: 34.1%
- Mixed race women: 24.4%
Men
About 3% of American men — or 1 in 33 — have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime.1- In 2003, 1 in every ten rape victims were male.2
- 2.78 million men in the U.S. have been victims of sexual assault or rape.1
Children
15% of sexual assault and rape victims are under age 12.3- 29% are age 12-17.
- 44% are under age 18.3
- 12-34 are the highest risk years.
- Girls ages 16-19 are 4 times more likely than the general population to be victims of rape, attempted rape, or sexual assault.
- 3% of boys grades 5-8 and 5% of boys in grades 9-12 said they had been sexually abused.
- Of these, 75% were girls.
- Nearly 30% of child victims were between the age of 4 and 7.
- 34.2% of attackers were family members.
- 58.7% were acquaintances.
- Only 7% of the perpetrators were strangers to the victim.
Effects of Rape
Victims of sexual assault are:7
3 times more likely to suffer from depression.6 times more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder.13 times more likely to abuse alcohol.
26 times more likely to abuse drugs.
4 times more likely to contemplate suicide.
Pregnancies Resulting from Rape
In 2004-2005, 64,080 women were raped.8 According to medical reports, the incidence of pregnancy for one-time unprotected sexual intercourse is 5%. By applying the pregnancy rate to 64,080 women, RAINN estimates that there were 3,204 pregnancies as a result of rape during that period.This calculation does not account for the following factors which could lower the actual number of pregnancies:
- Rape, as defined by the NCVS, is forced sexual intercourse. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by offender(s). This category includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Certain types of rape under this definition cannot cause pregnancy.
- Some victims of rape may be utilizing birth control methods, such as the pill, which will prevent pregnancy.
- Some rapists may wear condoms in an effort to avoid DNA detection.
- Vicims of rape may not be able to become pregnant for medical or age-related reasons.
This calculation does not account for the following factors which could raise the actual number of pregnancies:
- Medical estimates of a 5% pregnancy rate are for one-time, unprotected sexual intercourse. Some victimizations may include multiple incidents of intercourse.
- Because of methodology, NCVS does not measure the victimization of Americans age 12 or younger. Rapes of these young people could results in pregnancies not accounted for in RAINN's estimates.
I'm glad you posted these figures. In our voting discussion, you only wanted to count felony convictions - not estimates, anecdotes, probabilities, investigations, plea bargains or dropped charges. On that reasoning, you concluded there was no problem.
ReplyDeleteBut here . . . .
Joe writes:
ReplyDelete"In our voting discussion, you only wanted to count felony convictions - not estimates, anecdotes, probabilities, investigations, plea bargains or dropped charges. On that reasoning, you concluded there was no problem. "
That is incorrect Joe. I want to count wrongful votes, votes that were found to be illegal, not just convictions.
I am not willing to count anectdotes, because those are not verifiable and have too often proven wrong. I am not willing to accept estimates or probabilities, because likewise, those have not proven reliable, in contrast to voter rosters, voter rolls, and the carefully reviewed ballots. The estimates and probabilities don't stand up under the studies by experts like Uggens and Manza, or the Ashcroft investigation under Bush, or the most recent study.
Keep in mind plea bargains are still convictions. You assume dropped charges mean that there was something actually wrong, when that is not demonstrably true. What it does mean is either 1. there WAS NOTHING WRONG, upon investigation; or 2. there was nothing substantially wrong, but instead problems such as clerical errors, etc.
I am the one basing conclusions on proven, challenged investigations. YOU are the one relying on pseudo-investigations that are sloppy and rely on debunked methodology, that are NOT conclusive investigations that hold up under challenge, both legal challenge and academic peer review challenge.
I want to rely on actual voter fraud, not maybe, not coulda-woulda-shoulda-mighta fraud accusations. I want to rely on factual determinations of wrongful voting.
You make unwarranted assumptions that investigations or accusations that did not result in prosecution were still wrongful or improper or illegal votes.
You have on factual basis for that. UNLIKE you, I've corresponded with the people at citizens for election integrity; unlike you, I'm willing to contact EVERY county attorney to clarify what the EI people found in their study. And unlike you, I've actually read the other respected and recognized studies, know them and understand them.
They ALL support that your assumptions about wrongful voting is inaccurate.
On THAT basis, not simply convictions (which is a gross misrepresentation of what I contend btw) I conclude that there is no problem.
I can discuss in detail the processes used to verify that the voter rolls are legitimate. I would bet you cannot describe ANY of the ways that those are kept correct and current, in any detail.
So.......why by any remote stretch of reason can anyone assume you are the one who knows what goes on in elections, but I'm not? Did YOU actually participate in either recount? How long has it been since you were an election judge or took the training?
You are repeating an unsupported extreme partisan view Joe.
The Republican election judges in this state agree with me that there is no problem with voter fraud.
The Republicans who have gone into court on voter ID have agreed there is no problem with voter fraud - even when they campaigned for voter ID by claiming there was. How DO you explain that??????
Coleman and his lawyers were very clear there was no voter fraud in that election. How do you explain that, if there was voter fraud?????????? They made that claim both in court, and on Almanac on Ch.2.
So........NO, you have no basis for claiming voter fraud that has any substance. And NO, I'm not only counting felony convictions, I'm citing all -- ALL -- of the investigations, court cases, recounts, etc.
Btw - what objections do you have to these statistics?
ReplyDelete