Free news

FREE blog







Gun poll








14th Amdt

19th Amdt













Lies, damned lies and rape statistics

By Melanie Phillips. First published in the Daily Mail, July 24 2002.


Mark Twain once observed that there were three kinds of untruth: lies, damned lies and statistics. Now we should add a fourth category of whopper: the Home Office research study.


According to one such specimen published this week, no fewer than one in every 20 women aged between 16 and 59 in England and Wales has been raped, and one in ten has experienced some form of ‘sexual victimisation’. Most of these assaults, said the study, had been committed not by strangers but by intimates – partners, former partners and acquaintances.


If true, this would indeed be an appalling state of affairs. Such huge numbers suffering serious sexual assault would mean that women were living in the shadow of an intolerable level of violence by men. After all, rape is one of the most serious crimes on the statute book because of the damage it does to a woman, both physical and psychological.


If the researchers were correct, one would therefore expect to hear an enormous amount of female distress and rage being expressed against these male ‘intimates’. We would all of us know women friends or relatives who had been raped or sexually assaulted.


But we are not hearing this. We are instead shocked and amazed by these figures. The reason for our incomprehension is simple. What the researchers are telling us is not true. Indeed, this study is a load of manipulative, malevolent rubbish which must call the credibility of the Home Office research department seriously into question.


The devil here is in the definition. To most people, rape means sexual penetration against the victim’s consent, which implies of necessity an act of violence or the threat of violence.


The Home Office researchers have muddied this concept. Instead of the legal definition of rape as ‘penile penetration’, the study defines it merely as ‘forced to have sexual intercourse against your will’.


But the definition of ‘forced against your will’ is highly subjective. It can so easily translate into ‘if you didn’t want to’, which can become meaningless. Although the study claims the word ‘forced’ implies an assault, it does nothing of the kind.


A woman might feel forced to have sex against her will, for example, if her lover tells her that otherwise he will leave here for another woman.  Or she might be an unwilling participant because he is drunk, or hasn’t had a bath for a week, or she doesn’t love him.


The crucial point is that in such circumstances she is participating in sex even though she could choose not to do so.  She is therefore not the victim of violence. By any fair-minded or common-sense definition, this is not rape. Yet the Home Office researchers appear to have included this kind of experience in their definition.


This already highly questionable exercise then becomes positively surreal. For believe it or not, the ‘raped’ women in the survey themselves don’t think what has happened to them is rape. The study actually admits that, of the women who the researchers said had been raped, fewer than two thirds themselves described what had happened to them as rape. And fewer than three quarters of those who the researchers said had experienced sexual victimisation thought of this as a crime.


The reason for the discrepancy is perfectly obvious to anyone who is not busy playing sexual politics. These events were simply not rapes or sexual assaults, and the women concerned knew this perfectly well. That is because most of these incidents happened within sexual relationships with intimates, and the women involved appeared to accept what most people would think, that the issue of consent between lovers can be highly ambiguous.


Yet what these women themselves made of their experiences seems to be of no consequence to these Whitehall researchers, who of course know better than the victims what has happened to them. (So much for Home Office rhetoric about putting the victim first). They therefore drum up one self-serving reason after another to explain why sexual experiences which the women didn’t think were rape were indeed rape.


Thus, they suggest that the women might not want to admit they have been raped because this is degrading and stigmatising; or they may not want to acknowledge that someone they like or love is a rapist. The idea that they knew perfectly well that the person they liked or loved was not a rapist does not occur to these researchers. The women are simply wrong.


This astonishing display of contempt arises because nothing as inconvenient as a few facts can get in the way of the assumption behind this study: that women are being raped, and men are getting away with it.


The ideological bias that is clearly driving this research is underlined by a crucial omission.  The study says that most sexual violence is committed by partners. But – highly significantly – it omits to make a distinction between partners and spouses.  It therefore does not tell us whether women suffer as much sexual assault from husbands as from boyfriends or cohabitants.


Yet all the available research suggests that the risk of sexual violence is negligible within marriage, and is hugely increased among cohabitants or more casual sexual partners. Marriage is actually the best physical protection against sexual violence.


But this study states instead that home life not safe. Here we get to the nasty core of this whole misleading exercise. For the underlying purpose is to demonise men and write them out of the domestic script altogether.


It is this agenda of marriage-busting, man-hating feminism which has now got the Home Office well and truly in its clutches. Ever since New Labour came to power, it has been spouting a torrent of distorted information about domestic violence.


It has been exaggerating its incidence, omitting a vast amount of international evidence that women are equally aggressive as men and –- again – refusing to acknowledge the key fact that most domestic violence takes place between cohabiting and other unmarried couples.


The fact is that sexual mores have dramatically changed. Women now initiate casual sex; they carry condoms in their bags and drink, smoke, swear and often parody the worst caricature of macho culture.


As a result, the rules of the mating game have totally altered. The room for ambiguous signals has hugely expanded. That’s why the courts are reluctant to convict men accused of rape.


But Whitehall’s feminists cannot allow a little thing like injustice to interrupt their agenda. So the government is now hell bent on rigging the justice system itself to get men convicted of rape, by hook or by crook. To justify this, men have to be shown as perpetrating an intolerable level of violence upon women.


The result of this lie is not only to commit a calumny upon the male sex. It will also trivialise real rape when it occurs, make it harder to convict the guilty and betray the true needs of women to be protected against violence.



jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition


Hit Counter


Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party