Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tekecs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw
From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: will 15% really be assaulted...
Message-ID: <4016@tekecs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 30-Aug-84 12:29:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekecs.4016
Posted: Thu Aug 30 12:29:29 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Sep-84 11:14:25 EDT
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 26

> The figure is not unreasonable (at least for women in big cities).

> IN Dallas there are 700 rapes / year (reported).  There are 500,000 women.

Funny you should pick Dallas. I seem to remember reading a few years back that
Dallas has the highest rate of reported rapes (by a considerable amount) in
the nation.

> Population divided by two.  Performing the indicated operations that means
> 7 per cent of all women will be raped.  (Assuming there is a 50 year
> window).

That's a *big* assumption. Do you think a woman of 60 has the same chance of
being raped as a woman of 20? Hardly. You have to make an age breakdown of
those 700 rapes and determine the effective window based on that. I suspect
15 is more reasonable.

> If one takes estimates that 1 in 4 to 1 in 6 rapes are actually reported,
> a 1 in 3 figure is reasonable.

One may disagree with those estimates without being unreasonable. Say 1 in 3.

With my assumptions, the number is now 6.3% instead of 33% (in Dallas).
Which is still pretty frightening. But not nearly as effective grist for
the propaganda mills.
                                           Jeff Winslow