Derek – it doesn’t matter if it’s 25% or 15% (well, yes, I mean it matters. It would be tragic to have even more assaults than actual but that’s not the point here). The point is that of the 10, 15, 25 whatever percent…. 0.0000001 are being committed by someone on the registry.

It’s like that other dumb idea that came up after the Stanford guy was seen in a bar, to not allow registrants in Bars. We know that sometimes people can commit a sexual assault against an intoxicated women they hook up with in a bar. Perhaps (just throwing a number out there) 5% of all women were sexually assaulted by someone they met in a bar. But are the perpetrators overwhelmingly people on the registry? In other words, would banning registrants bring that number down to 1% or would it bring that number down to 4.99999999% and the 99.00000001 of registrants who go to a bar are not sexually assaulting anyone?

If women ages 18-24 are 3x more likely to be raped on campus but 4x more likely to be raped if not a student then obuously being a student on campus is safer.
Drunk sex is considered rape in all these studies, meaning the results are poisoned by a fatal flaw in the study design.
Obviously self reporting has flaws, especially when discussing unreported actions. How do we know it was a crime? I’ve already shown in previous research that the NCVS is open to broad interpretation. Campus feminists believe flirting, staring too long, or making an unwanted advance equates to a “sexual assault.” RAINN’s cited studies in turn relied on the flawed NCVS as the blueprint for similat studies.

I believe RAINN does this on purpose to inflate numbers.