this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
3894 readers
3 users here now
Rules:
- Posts must abide by lemmy.world terms and conditions
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I updated my comment.
You're right. My source claims to have used "police recorded" incidents only. Again reporting patterns, definitions, and perceptions are extremely different now, especially post meetoo, than in 1944. I.e., you're using a multiplier on a heavily underreported number (1944) to compare to a heavily overreported number (based on change in criteria) from 2022.
Good on you for looking this up. Your search history must look interesting. Regardless, unless they changed the age of consent and its enforcement before May 1945, this actually supports my point.
The background on this is, the first time I realized Elon Musk is either very dumb or a nazi (or both) was when he boosted a post on interracial violence that did not adjust for population distribution. It's one of those ways to make outlandish statements that are "technically correct". It's like saying that based on their lower obesity rates, stone age people were healthier than modern humans.
That's a point I consider much more acceptable. Yet this ruined an otherwise pretty funny original post.
So now your complaint is that I use an estimate of rapes instead of reported rapes to compare against reported rapes?
You do realize that if I used an estimate of rapes vs. an estimate of rapes, or reported rapes vs. reported rapes, in both cases the numbers would be much more favorable to the argument regarding the relatively low rate of rape committed by American soldiers in France, right?
But the 1944-45 is an estimated number that presumes that only 5% of rapes were reported; ie the 3,500 number is itself using a significantly higher multiplier than the modern estimation. Unless your argument is that unlike numbers cannot be compared even with attempts at correction, in which case any comparison of rape statistics over a significant period of time is impossible, there's nothing here.
Does it? Unless your argument is that a massive proportion of the girls who were raped-but-not-recorded were between the ages of 13 and 14, it displays that there's not much of a numerical difference caused by the change in the age of consent laws.
Because I... contested that the incidence of American wartime rape in France in WW2 was significantly higher than under normal circumstances?
Sorry for pointing out that something was a terrible example?
FTFY. Since the definition of rape and consent had heavily changed in that 80+ year interval, you are not comparing the same thing.
Yes that's exactly my argument.
Not as specific absolute numbers when your correction multiplier can arbitrarily go anywhere between 2-10x (look up Radzinowicz dark figure formula that Lilly reportedly used)
definitely not possible without taking the differences in definition (including age of consent), reporting behavior and the distribution and behavior of population at risk (like hiding...) , etc into consideration just to make a statement like
Ironically, the BBC article you're referring to captures my objections very well even in its title: Revisionists challenge D-Day story
You managed to outdo the example in outlandishness.
That's not even close. Jesus H. Christ.
Would you like to elaborate on how the definition of rape and consent changing in that 80+ year interval changes an estimation made in the early 2000s using modern definitions of rape?
So you couldn't say, for example, that modern rates of rape are lower than that of American soldiers during WW2? Since numbers are incomparable, of course, by your own argument.
... what? I haven't referred to any BBC article.
How? By your own argument, you have nothing to contradict my point, since numbers are apparently incomparable. How can you say a point is outlandish if you can't even dispute the basis of the assertion?
I've specified differences between 2022 and 1944 few times above how they may apply differently to the two eras and situation, particularly the marital part, I don't think I need to repeat myself about it. Now, have you read the book?
Correct and I'm not the one comparing apples to oranges here.
Mea culpa, you've just responded to it and seem to be quoting the numbers from it:
Reference [10] is the BBC article.
Let me recite it:
Those numbers say nothing about the actual safety of a French woman now vs. WW2.
But this is getting a little boring at this point. Just use a contemporary comparison next time and then you won't give off the impression of someone trivializing war associated sexual violence.
Unless you think marital rape was a major problem amongst American GIs in France from 1944-1945, it's not really a salient point.
Yes, actually. It has its problems, but the estimation of the number of rapes performed by GIs in France is not in dispute here; we are accepting it for the sake of the argument and as the citation given, the implication thereof which is being disputed.
I quoted the wiki article because the wiki article was what was offered by the original commenter, and was the implication that I was refuting. Jesus H. Christ.
Which means your point is "We don't know and we can't know because evidence doesn't exist", which is utterly worthless as a contribution to the discussion.
So, uh, thanks, I guess.
I love that you offer both "Numbers are meaningless" and "You should've used contemporary numbers instead!"
Of course, if I did, then your argument would doubtlessly be "But contemporary definitions of rape don't include acts we include in modern definitions of rape, therefore, it's incomparable and my preconception remains untarnished by evidence."
Bravo, you've found the difference!
The comparability of arbitrarily picked numbers is in dispute which depends on the methodology.
Fair, my time is better spent on people understanding the difference between "use comparable metrics FFS" and "numbers are useless".
If marital rape was not an issue amongst GIs, it would not have driven their rate of rapes up. As we are concerned with actual rapes committed, and not arbitrarily excluding rapes because of legal definitions, it makes no sense to try to claim the lack of marital rape recognized by contemporary law to be at all relevant.
Yet you aren't disputing the methodology, but the definitions of rape. Yet in your dispute of the definitions, you manage to define literally nothing that would create substantial discontinuity between the statistics being compared.
Comparable metrics like "Rape per capita" and "rape per capita".
But sure, go back to claiming that the numbers are wrong, and that I've inflated them fivefold, and then backtrack and completely reverse your argument into a dismissal of the applicability of those numbers once it turns out that the numbers are valid and are against your argument, not in support of it.
Pathetic.
Since 1944 rape was legally redefined and expanded 5-6 times in both France and England (i prefer not to get into the details...), some of the laws and significant societal changes, actual policing standards changed even after this book was written (2001) and published (2007). Even the non-conflict related stats have a disclaimer about cultural and legal differences limiting direct comparison, but most importantly the UN considers conflict-related sexual violence as its own distinct category (again you've compared conflict vs non-conflict stats).
But at this point I'll give in to your logic and conclude this discussion with this graph which clearly indicates "that by those numbers, it would be much safer to be a woman with an English man in 2007, than to be a woman with an English man in 2022."
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/sexualoffencesinenglandandwalesoverview/march2022