And now a message from:
Sexual Assault of Women, Prevention Efforts and Risk Factors, Ingrid Sochting, Richmond Hospital, and Nichole Rairbrother and William J Koch, University of British Comlubia Hospital, Violence Against Women, Vol. 10, No. 1, January 2004 p 73-93
“Anecdotal evidence suggests that women trained in self-defense are three times less likely to be raped.”
“…forceful physical resistance, forceful verbal resistance, and fleeing have consistently been found to be the most effective (in preventing rape completion), whereas non-forceful verbal resistance has been related to rape completion.”
“Although some authors have found a link between forceful resistance and an increased risk for injury, others have not. It is noteworthy that the injuries stemming from resistance tend to be minor, that is, cuts and bruises. Only 4% of the women in the study suffered major injuries, such as broken bones. Similarly, only 3% of rape victims in their study required overnight hospitalization, and they concluded that the risk for serious injury during a sexual assault is not high. However, crimes with fatal outcomes were not considered in their data set. Knowing that injury in the form of a completed rape is likely in the absence of any resistance; we can with greater confidence advocate resistance in sexual assaults.”
Showing posts with label Fighting back in an attack. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fighting back in an attack. Show all posts
Monday, July 5, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
A LITTLE MORE ON FIGHTING BACK
A quote from:
Rape: A Century of Resistance, Patricia D. Rozee and Mary P. Koss, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25 (2001), 295-311,
“Because of the view of women’s chances against a rapist that these news reports instill, it is not uncommon for families, friends, or male partners to undermine women’s confidence in their ability to defend themselves.
Women who do not resist are more likely to be raped; more often blamed for the rape and are likely to suffer the associated deleterious physical and psychological aftereffects.
The evidence is consistent: resistance may prevent rape and resistance poses no increased risk of injury. For example, Sarah Ullman found that more forceful victim resistance (verbal and physical) was related to less severe sexual abuse even when partialling out level of situational danger and offender aggression. In addition, these researchers found the victim resistance was not related to the level of physical injury. When sequence of events is considered, it is found that women resist more when they are being hurt rather than the reverse.
Self-defense mastery has a strong empowerment effect on women including enhanced perceived control and coping, decreased perceived vulnerability to assault, reductions in negative thinking and anxiety about safety, decreased avoidance behavior, and most potent of all, increased freedom of action.
Consciousness of one’s own ability to resist leads women to feel stronger, more insightful, and more capable of responding effectively to future danger. On the one hand, there is the strong cultural message that rape resistance is both futile and dangerous, and women have been conditioned to believe it. On the other hand, women who do not resist are more likely to be raped, more often blamed for the rape, and are likely to suffer the associated deleterious physical and psychological aftereffects. In addition, if the victim-survivor wants to prosecute the man who raped her, she will encounter negative reactions from juries, because the absence of verbal or physical resistance in creased judgments of victim-survivor consent. The more the victim-survivor resisted, the more certain are the observers that a rape occurred. Although the law does not require resistance, juries still rely on it to decide conflicting claims about consent. Immediate physical or forceful verbal resistance is more likely to successfully prevent rape and, in the case of completed rape, convince the jury that the victim-survivor did all she could to avoid being raped. The evidence is consistent: resistance may prevent rape and resistance poses no increased risk of injury. Self-defense mastery has a strong empowerment effect on women including enhanced perceived control and coping, decreased perceived vulnerability to assault, reductions in negative thinking and anxiety about safety, decreased avoidance behavior, and most potent of all, increased freedom of action.”
Rape: A Century of Resistance, Patricia D. Rozee and Mary P. Koss, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25 (2001), 295-311,
“Because of the view of women’s chances against a rapist that these news reports instill, it is not uncommon for families, friends, or male partners to undermine women’s confidence in their ability to defend themselves.
Women who do not resist are more likely to be raped; more often blamed for the rape and are likely to suffer the associated deleterious physical and psychological aftereffects.
The evidence is consistent: resistance may prevent rape and resistance poses no increased risk of injury. For example, Sarah Ullman found that more forceful victim resistance (verbal and physical) was related to less severe sexual abuse even when partialling out level of situational danger and offender aggression. In addition, these researchers found the victim resistance was not related to the level of physical injury. When sequence of events is considered, it is found that women resist more when they are being hurt rather than the reverse.
Self-defense mastery has a strong empowerment effect on women including enhanced perceived control and coping, decreased perceived vulnerability to assault, reductions in negative thinking and anxiety about safety, decreased avoidance behavior, and most potent of all, increased freedom of action.
Consciousness of one’s own ability to resist leads women to feel stronger, more insightful, and more capable of responding effectively to future danger. On the one hand, there is the strong cultural message that rape resistance is both futile and dangerous, and women have been conditioned to believe it. On the other hand, women who do not resist are more likely to be raped, more often blamed for the rape, and are likely to suffer the associated deleterious physical and psychological aftereffects. In addition, if the victim-survivor wants to prosecute the man who raped her, she will encounter negative reactions from juries, because the absence of verbal or physical resistance in creased judgments of victim-survivor consent. The more the victim-survivor resisted, the more certain are the observers that a rape occurred. Although the law does not require resistance, juries still rely on it to decide conflicting claims about consent. Immediate physical or forceful verbal resistance is more likely to successfully prevent rape and, in the case of completed rape, convince the jury that the victim-survivor did all she could to avoid being raped. The evidence is consistent: resistance may prevent rape and resistance poses no increased risk of injury. Self-defense mastery has a strong empowerment effect on women including enhanced perceived control and coping, decreased perceived vulnerability to assault, reductions in negative thinking and anxiety about safety, decreased avoidance behavior, and most potent of all, increased freedom of action.”
Thursday, June 24, 2010
FIGHTING BACK WORKS
And now a quote from:
Fighting Back Works: The Case for Advocating and Teaching Self-Defense Against Rape, by Marge Heyden, Tiel Jackson, Billie Anger, and Todd Ellner, From the Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, May/June 1999
“A thorough review of the available literature has led us to some surprising conclusions about the effectiveness of traditional anti-rape advice. Women are often advised to use non-aggressive strategies against sexual assault. Research suggests that this is poor advice. According to one study, women who used non-forceful verbal strategies, such as crying or pleading with the assailant, were raped about 96% of the time. In the same study, women who did nothing to protect themselves were raped about 93% of the time.
Forceful verbal resistance, including yelling and loud screaming, was more effective than non-forceful verbal resistance. These strategies were associated with completion of rape from 44% - 50% of the time. This study is particularly interesting because the data were collected from rapists in maximum security psychiatric hospitals, showing that forceful verbal strategies can be effective even against the violently insane.
Running worked even better than verbal resistance. Although researchers who relied on rape crisis center records and police records report a 55% rape completion rate against those who attempted to flee, broader studies … indicate that only 15% of women who attempted to flee were raped. Running was also associated with a lower rate of injury.
Forceful physical resistance was an extremely successful strategy. The completed rape rate dropped to between 45% and 14% [to at least 45% and as low as 14%] when the rapist's attempt was met with violent physical force. Striking was more successful than pushing or wrestling. Physical resistance also appears to be more effective when assault occurs outdoors.
Women are sometimes advised that fighting back will increase their risk of injury. There are two problems with this argument.
First, research shows that physical resistance does not cause further injury to the resister. While there is a correlation between resistance and a somewhat higher rate of physical injury (at most 3%), researchers who examined the sequence of events found that injury usually occurred before resistance. In other words, resisters were not injured because they had resisted: rather, being injured motivated them to fight back. After the initial injury, forceful resistance did not increase the resister's risk of further damage.
Second, this argument overlooks the fact that a woman who does not resist is virtually guaranteed to suffer the emotional and physical injury of the rape itself. Even when resisters are injured, the injury is typically much less severe than a completed rape would have been. Of those 40% of resisters who suffered physical damage, only 7% suffered injury as severe as a dislodged tooth. A woman who fights back incurs no demonstrable chance of additional injury, but she gains a 55-86% chance of avoiding rape altogether.”
Fighting Back Works: The Case for Advocating and Teaching Self-Defense Against Rape, by Marge Heyden, Tiel Jackson, Billie Anger, and Todd Ellner, From the Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, May/June 1999
“A thorough review of the available literature has led us to some surprising conclusions about the effectiveness of traditional anti-rape advice. Women are often advised to use non-aggressive strategies against sexual assault. Research suggests that this is poor advice. According to one study, women who used non-forceful verbal strategies, such as crying or pleading with the assailant, were raped about 96% of the time. In the same study, women who did nothing to protect themselves were raped about 93% of the time.
Forceful verbal resistance, including yelling and loud screaming, was more effective than non-forceful verbal resistance. These strategies were associated with completion of rape from 44% - 50% of the time. This study is particularly interesting because the data were collected from rapists in maximum security psychiatric hospitals, showing that forceful verbal strategies can be effective even against the violently insane.
Running worked even better than verbal resistance. Although researchers who relied on rape crisis center records and police records report a 55% rape completion rate against those who attempted to flee, broader studies … indicate that only 15% of women who attempted to flee were raped. Running was also associated with a lower rate of injury.
Forceful physical resistance was an extremely successful strategy. The completed rape rate dropped to between 45% and 14% [to at least 45% and as low as 14%] when the rapist's attempt was met with violent physical force. Striking was more successful than pushing or wrestling. Physical resistance also appears to be more effective when assault occurs outdoors.
Women are sometimes advised that fighting back will increase their risk of injury. There are two problems with this argument.
First, research shows that physical resistance does not cause further injury to the resister. While there is a correlation between resistance and a somewhat higher rate of physical injury (at most 3%), researchers who examined the sequence of events found that injury usually occurred before resistance. In other words, resisters were not injured because they had resisted: rather, being injured motivated them to fight back. After the initial injury, forceful resistance did not increase the resister's risk of further damage.
Second, this argument overlooks the fact that a woman who does not resist is virtually guaranteed to suffer the emotional and physical injury of the rape itself. Even when resisters are injured, the injury is typically much less severe than a completed rape would have been. Of those 40% of resisters who suffered physical damage, only 7% suffered injury as severe as a dislodged tooth. A woman who fights back incurs no demonstrable chance of additional injury, but she gains a 55-86% chance of avoiding rape altogether.”
Monday, June 14, 2010
FIGHTING BACK
“They found that in response to physical attacks, the most effective strategies were forceful fighting and screaming for reducing the severity of a sexual assault without increasing the level of physical injury indicating that forceful resistance strategies are effective in avoiding rape without experiencing more physical harm.”
Self-Defense Training: A Brief Review by Alyssa A. Rheingold and Dean G Kilpatrick, National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center, Medical University of South Carolina. http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/self-defense.html
Self-Defense Training: A Brief Review by Alyssa A. Rheingold and Dean G Kilpatrick, National Violence Against Women Prevention Research Center, Medical University of South Carolina. http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/research/self-defense.html
Saturday, June 12, 2010
SHIFT IN THINKING
While doing research, not only did I find the DOJ statistics, I read a number of papers, articles and web sites. I’ve scavenged the parts that were the most interesting to me and will post them over the next few weeks. These are taken directly from the source, so there are copyrights on them. The reference information and direct link to the source is located before each excerpt.
In reference to the benefits of physical resistance in the event of an attack: studies have shown that women who resist either physically or verbally (and preferably both) or flee are more likely to avoid the completion of a rape. Studies also show that women who resist with less forceful types of resistance (pleading, crying and reasoning) have a higher likelihood of suffering a completed rape. Women who resist are not likely to suffer more injuries than women who don’t resist; in fact some studies found less injuries occurred. Based on these finding perhaps myths such as “It is better to just talk your way out of an attack.” “You will be injured more if you resist.” “Just throw-up on yourself.” “Women aren’t strong enough to fight back.” should be reconsidered.
The Effects of Resistance Strategies on Rape by Janice M Zoucha-Jensen, MSW and Ann Coyne, PhD, American Journal of Public Health, November 1993, Vol. 83, No. 11.
“These findings also counter some prior research on resistance strategies, research that has resulted in inaccurate advice to women to use only non-forceful verbal resistance, or no resistance at all, if faced with a sexual assault. Those types of resistance strategies were shown in this study to be associated with being raped, not with rape avoidance, and they did not reduce the incidence of physical injury.
This analysis…did indicate that forceful verbal resistance, physical resistance, and fleeing were all associated with rape avoidance, whereas non-forceful verbal resistance and no resistance were associated with being raped. Further, women who used forceful resistance were no more likely to be injured than women who did not resist.”
In reference to the benefits of physical resistance in the event of an attack: studies have shown that women who resist either physically or verbally (and preferably both) or flee are more likely to avoid the completion of a rape. Studies also show that women who resist with less forceful types of resistance (pleading, crying and reasoning) have a higher likelihood of suffering a completed rape. Women who resist are not likely to suffer more injuries than women who don’t resist; in fact some studies found less injuries occurred. Based on these finding perhaps myths such as “It is better to just talk your way out of an attack.” “You will be injured more if you resist.” “Just throw-up on yourself.” “Women aren’t strong enough to fight back.” should be reconsidered.
The Effects of Resistance Strategies on Rape by Janice M Zoucha-Jensen, MSW and Ann Coyne, PhD, American Journal of Public Health, November 1993, Vol. 83, No. 11.
“These findings also counter some prior research on resistance strategies, research that has resulted in inaccurate advice to women to use only non-forceful verbal resistance, or no resistance at all, if faced with a sexual assault. Those types of resistance strategies were shown in this study to be associated with being raped, not with rape avoidance, and they did not reduce the incidence of physical injury.
This analysis…did indicate that forceful verbal resistance, physical resistance, and fleeing were all associated with rape avoidance, whereas non-forceful verbal resistance and no resistance were associated with being raped. Further, women who used forceful resistance were no more likely to be injured than women who did not resist.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)