Especially For Young Women



magician cartoon


Incredible Rape Statistics

Note: The piece below will show you how researchers into the incidence of rape and sex assault can create almost any numbers that they wish. 

The way in which academics research the statistics to do with sex-assault is, for the most part, very simple.

They issue questionnaires to a sample of people and, basically, they ask them if they were the victims of sex-assaults during a certain period - usually, the previous 12 months. And from the answers to their questions they can then multiply their figures upwards in order to estimate what is going on throughout the population.

But there is a real problem with this when the behaviour (sex-assault) is so ill-defined and when, also, it is relatively rare - percentage-wise.

Quite simply, some respondents will lie.

Not many. Just a few.

But when the behaviour that they are lying about is relatively rare, then it is very easy for the small number of liars to swamp the true figures.

For example, if just 2% of the respondents lie about being sexually assaulted and it is also true that sex-assaults are rare, then this 2% can distort massively the research findings about sex-assault.

Now, the UK Home Office researchers into sex assaults reckon that some 400,000 women every year are sexually assaulted in the UK on the basis of their questionnaires.

if 2% of the sample of subjects are lying then the entire figure of 400,000 is bogus.

But 400,000 is only about 2% of the adult female population. And so if 2% of the sample of subjects that are questioned are lying to the researchers, then the entire figure of 400,000 is bogus.

And then, when this 400,000 of alleged sex assaults gets multiplied upwards - typically over a woman's sexual lifetime of some 43 years (aged between 16 and 59) - the researchers conclude that there were some 17 million sex assaults during this period.

But this huge figure could stem entirely from the small number of liars.

Now, it might be that only 1% of the sample are lying to the researchers - who knows the real figure? But even if this was true, this would still mean that some 200,000 of alleged sex assaults that take place every year (according to the Home Office)  are not real. They did not happen.

Of course, it could also be the case that some women who did experience sex assaults denied that they had such an experience during the previous 12 months.

Maybe they did not want to tell the researcher. Or maybe they just forgot about it.

Who knows?

But the point is this.

Any small variation in the percentage of liars (in either direction) translates into a shift of tens of thousands of alleged sex-assaults.

All in all, therefore, it seems fairly obvious that the Home Office figures are completely invalid and, therefore, cannot be trusted.

Indeed, a few years ago, the Home Office researchers concluded that 0.4% of women had been raped in the 12 months prior to the research, and that 0.5% had been sexually assaulted (without penile penetration) during the same period.

But it is just not credible that the number of women who were sexually assaulted without penetration was almost the same as the number of women who were sexually assaulted with penetration.

Life just does not work like this.

More extreme things (penetration) happen far less often than less extreme things (without penetration).

Does anyone seriously believe that unwanted penetration occurs just as often as unwanted sexual groping

(Does anyone seriously believe that unwanted penetration occurs just as often as unwanted sexual groping, kissing, fondling etc?)

And when you point out to these academics that their figures are just not believable, they simply re-jigger the whole process to make their results seem more credible.

Similarly, a few years ago, their official figures (when multiplied over a 43 year period) implied that about 1/3 of men in the UK were rapists. And when this was pointed out to them many months later, their figures came tumbling down.

The 'researchers' do this type of thing all the time.

Indeed, imagine, for example, that one of the questions that was asked of their respondents went something like this.

"During the past 12 months, have you had sex when not in the mood?"

Researchers (particularly of a feminist persuasion) might well believe that a Yes to the above question indicates sex assault. After all, if a woman has sex when she is not in the mood, then it seems fair to conclude that she has been pressured into sex.

So what happens if 30% of respondents say Yes to the above question? - a figure that would seem to be quite reasonable to those of us who know anything about normal adult sex life.

Would the researchers then conclude that 30% of women had been sexually assaulted during the previous 12 months?

Would the Home Office publicise such a figure?

No. They wouldn't.

people would laugh at the idea that 30% of women were being sexually assaulted every year.

Because people would laugh at the idea that 30% of women were being sexually assaulted every year.

And so what the researchers would do in this type of situation is to re-jigger such questions - or only count the ones that seemed 'more appropriate'.

But, either way, this is not valid research into sex assaults.

This is just fooling around with the questions and the figures in order to get the answers that they want - answers that must sound credible.

All in all, therefore, their research into sex assaults is just incredible.




End Note 1

It is not my intention to suggest that no sex assaults take place, but to point out that the official figures are hugely flexible and highly unreliable, partly as a result of respondents not being truthful, and partly a result of researcher 'bias'.

Indeed, even if there is just an upward "error" of 0.1% (i.e. 1 in every thousand) as a result of women lying and/or because of the way in which the questions have been jiggered, we get an extra 20,000 rapes or sex assaults added to the pot.

Furthermore, it is important to understand that while the current official 2% rate for sex assaults in one year does not sound like very much, the implication of this figure is that over a period of many years a very high percentage of the male population has sexually assaulted women - somewhere around 20%, it would seem. Perhaps much higher.

But is it credible that so many men are really sexually-assaulting women?

Or are the official researchers fudging the figures to a huge extent? - perhaps because they have a vested interest in doing so.

And, just for the sake of further argument, imagine that, next year, they re-jigger the questions and the result is that not one single respondent claims to have been assaulted.

In other words, they get a zero-percent figure for sex assaults.

Does anyone seriously believe that this is the figure that we would hear about?

Of course not.

Quite simply. they would not accept the result.

we know that these figures are, essentially, just manufactured.

In other words, we know that these figures are, essentially, just manufactured.


End Note 2

I pointed out above that even if just 2% of women gave false responses in the questionnaires - and falsely asserted that they had been sexually assaulted - this would account for all the sex assaults that allegedly take place every year in the UK. And so one particularly interesting question is this.

Is it likely that 2% of women would lie in such a manner in surveys to do with sex assaults?

Well, the evidence suggests very strongly that the answer is Yes.

For example, see ...

How Official Rape Statistics are Distorted and Inflated (approx 5 min reading time)

Why Do Women Lie About Rape? (10 min)

The Truth About The Rape Statistics (8 min)


End Note 3

A very recent example of official bodies (in this case, the United Nations) jiggling around with the questions can be seen in this report from the BBC wherein a "rape" was recorded if a man answered Yes to the following question in a questionnaire  ...

"Have you had sex with your current or previous wife or girlfriend when you knew she didn't want it but you believed she should agree because she was your wife/partner?"

Men who had sex when their partners were not in the mood would probably have said Yes.

Notice also that people can often pressure their partners into having sex in order to try to make them feel good - perhaps to make up after a row,  to rekindle some warmth, or if they seem depressed or detached.

But such events are "rape" according to the United Nations.

In the UK, when I was a boy, women would often laugh at  having sex with their husbands when they were not in the mood.

"Lie back and think of England," was one of their typical humorous responses that showed how lightly they approached the matter.

Their husbands were usually out at work all day - mostly doing perfectly horrible jobs - while the wives remained in the comfort of the home, and it was very much seen by both men and women that it was the duty of the wife to have sex in much the same way that it was the duty of the husband to go out to work.

This was not seen as 'rape' but as a mutually-beneficial deal.

In my view, being pressured by your partner into having sex when not in the mood is not rape. If it is rape, then I have been raped often. But the United Nations - ever desperate for funding like so many other organisations - is trying to inflate the rape figures by fudging the definitions and, probably, by fudging the actual data - something that is very easy to do when it comes to questionnaire research.

Indeed, I have no doubts whatsoever that fudging the data is par for the course when it comes to politically-motivated research and a desire to enhance both funding and career prospects.

Goodness me. We even seem to find hospitals forever fudging the information and the data to cover up wrongdoing and to make themselves look good - in this case, at Colchester Hospital University, even when this puts cancer patients at serious risk.

And so when it comes to public questionnaires to do with sex assaults - wherein millions of dollars and thousands of jobs are at stake - does anyone seriously believe that this trivial, non-objective, non-testable questionnaire data will not be fudged?

Of course it will be.

And if discovered, nothing will happen to the culprits.

They will simply employ the well tried and tested claim that goes something like this .. "Well, we were just trying to keep highlighting the problem of rape. And if we have saved just one woman from being raped, then it was worth it, wasn't it?"

And the happy result for them will be that they will be lauded for what they did rather than castigated for their dishonesty.

 Of course they fudge the figures.

(Also see  Flooded By False Rape Allegations)


List of Articles

AH's RSS Feed


Recent comments from some emails which can be viewed in full here. ...

"I cannot thank you enough."

"I stumbled upon your web site yesterday. I read as much as I could in 24 hours of your pages."

"I want to offer you my sincere thanks."

"Your articles and site in general have changed my life."

"I have been reading your articles for hours ..."

"Firstly let me congratulate you on a truly wonderful site."

"I must say there aren't many sites that I regularly visit but yours certainly will be one of them, ..."

"It is terrific to happen upon your website."

"I just wanted to say thank you for making your brilliant website."

"Your site is brilliant. It gives me hours of entertainment."

"You are worth your weight in gold."

"Love your site, I visit it on a regular basis for relief, inspiration and for the sake of my own sanity in a world gone mad."

"I ventured onto your site ... it's ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT, and has kept me enthralled for hours!"

"I love the site, and agree with about 98% of what you post."

"I have been reading your site for a while now – and it is the best thing ever."

"you are doing a fabulous job in exposing the lies that silly sods like me have swallowed for years."



On YouTube ...

Who Rules Over Us?

Part 1 On Free Will

Part 2 On Super-Organisms

Part 3 On Power

Part 4 On Reality


Popular articles ...

... War on Drugs - Who benefits from the war on drugs?

... A Woman Needs A Man Like A Fish Needs A Bicycle - Surely, the evidence would suggest otherwise.

... Why Governments Love Feminism - It is mostly to do with money and power, not equality.

... The Psychological Differences Between Men and Women - Are women really more emotional than men?

...  Equality Between Men and Women Is Not Achievable -  especially since Hilary Clinton said that, "Women are the primary victims of war."

... Cultural Marxism And Feminism - The connections between Cultural Marxism and Feminism.

AH's RSS Feed

Front Page