yeah I was just hoping someone with more knowledge on the topic might be able to expound, because 7x just seems so much higher than what I might have guessed that I can't imagine the study not being flawed in some substantial way, but it has been cited a lot.

I mean I wouldn't be shocked if people who have been victimized once are victimized again. For example, individuals who are abused as children are more likely to be in an abusive relationship when they are older. 7x seems high to me but I'd have to read the actual study.

i assume women who have already reported being raped once are much more likely to report the next one

i know nothing about the study, though, so maybe they accounted for this

Well, I've heard between 1 in 4 and 1 in 3 women are raped in their lifetimes. So, I'm not seeing how they could become seven times as likely as 25% or 33% probability. Granted I'm more of a math guy than a social sciences guy.

Depending on exactly what they mean, if the women are raped multiple times, I guess you could say that in any given year, they were 7 times more likely to be raped than a woman who wasn't yet raped. ??

The statistics on rape really are mindblowing when you think about them throughout a day while interacting with a lot of different people.

I haven't looked at study but it could be say 32% of women are raped during their life. That could be broken down further to 4% of women are raped once in their lie, 28% are raped twice or more in their life, and 68% of women are never raped. That would be one way of coming up with the 7x number I think.

Well that would indeed involve one thing being 7x another thing. Not the things we are looking for, of course, but some things, nonetheless.

By way of being conversational, now you need to find a way to relate your 7/8th likelihood repeat rape victim to 1/8th likelihood never-been-raped women of being raped, even though we're taking that to be a 8/25 likelihood in the first place. Lots of luck.

LOL about the lets bust people for underage drinking turn this thread has tried to take.

Ya my bad. I was tired when I came up with that. The only thing I can think of is the study was done over a time period and during that time period the ptsd victims were 7 times more likely. The numbers for that time period would obviously be significantly lower than the 25%.

Yeah, I'm sure it's something like that. Just so we're clear it's sort of impossible given the way it's conclusion is stated.

And even then I'm wondering how it ever seemed like a fruitful endeavor;

We took 3,000 women, of identical backgrounds and makeups--half of which had previously been raped exactly once and half of which had never been raped, and we said, "go". X years later, we checked back with them on whether they'd been raped since our start date. We took people's words on this, despite the chronic issue of under reporting and the fact that our previously raped group had already proven themselves an exception to this going rule.

I love the social sciences.

Ok. Thought about it a bit more. Let’s take your figure of 25% of women being raped in their lifetime. Now take a random 3000 women out of the population. It will not be 25% or 750 of the 3000 women having been raped. It will be less, because some of the women that will be raped during their lifetime will not have been raped yet. Say it is 20%. So 600 women have been raped and 2400 have not in the study. So the 600 number of have been raped will increase from 600 to 750 over the course of their lives to arrive at the 25%. So 150 out of 2400 is 6.25%. So in order for past victims to be 7 times more likely, using these numbers, their chance of being raped would be 43.75%.

Sorry for the too large edit.

They weren't conducting the study to see how often women were raped once they'd already been raped, though. They were trying to determine risk factors for being raped - one risk factor they determined was previous sexual abuse.

Would be much simpler if I could find the article on any database my school uses.

Previous sexual abuse is also correlated with risky/promiscuous sexual behavior. Does this mean there's also a correlation between rape and promiscuity?

That's more of a rhetorical question to point out that studies like this and their conclusions should be talked about and thought about carefully. This is not like an epidemiological study on red wine and heart disease where reckless data interpretation and sloppy science won't lead us to highly offensive conclusions.

I'm actually highly offended by red wine being touted as a healthfood.

All,

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...itted-suicide/

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Nova...629/story.html

WTF IS GOING ON

People are ****ed up.

The media has started to pick up on a phenomenon that has occurred forever. (Rather, they've realized people like reading about that phenomenon, so now they're focusing on it.)

Boys sexually abusing drunk/passed out girls has been happening forever.

Posting pictures of the event online is pretty new (obv).

Facebook started in 2004. Hardly forever.

Teenagers killing themselves after being bullied isn't new to the Facebook era. I thought that's what we were talking about. The sexual harassment stuff, yeah, definitely facilitated by online communication, but I'd still argue it existed in other forms before.

Regardless, the fact that this kind of behavior has a long standing history does not excuse it, nor make it any less worthy of attention.

Yeah, you're missing the point here.

The fact that people are posting pictures of it on the internet is what makes this more notable.

We'll start seeing more of these acts. People are totally unoriginal.