Refuting the "Big Car = Safe" Myth

It is a universally known "fact" that the bigger the vehicle you drive, the safer you are.

Even those who buy small vehicles know this, they just feel that the increase in risk is small, and the benefits to parking, mileage, and cost are worth it.

Like many other universally known things, it just happens to be wrong.

This is extremely easy to prove:  just look at the actual crash statistics, compiled by vehicle weight:

(the NHTSA website is down, if / when it is restored, I'll post links to the original data)

At first glance this may appear to support the myth: Large vans are at the bottom, with the least crashes, and compact cars are at the top, with the most.

But look a little closer:

Subcompact cars are SAFER than compact cars.  They are even safer than small pickup trucks.

But subcompact cars weight LESS than small pick up trucks, as well as less than compacts.

Skip down a couple more lines: Full size cars are SAFER than full-size SUVs and standard pick-ups, even though on average they weigh substantially less.

But wait, there's more!  Midsize cars actually rank as safer than all sizes of truck, all sizes of SUV, and even safer than full-size cars!

So, if you were rationalizing that SUVs and trucks are only more dangerous than large cars due to roll-over risk, you still have to explain why midsize cars have fewer fatalities than large cars.

Here is similar data, with different presentation: a chart of risk relative to average (100=average) of several vehicle types

      Vehicle Class                Avg. Weight      Relative Fatality Risk

Subcompact (high-risk)             2,000lbs                    143

Sports Cars                              3,200lbs                    142

Compact Pick-ups                    3,500lbs                    123

1/2-ton pick-ups                       4,300lbs                    105

3/4-ton pick-ups                       5,400lbs                    101

1-ton pick-ups                          7,000lbs                    100

Compact cars                           2,500lbs                     96

Subcompact (low risk)              2,000lbs                     85

Truck based SUV                     5,400lbs                     82

Large Cars                               4,400lbs                     75

Mid Size Cars                          3,200lbs                     74

Full-size Vans                          5,000lbs                      52

Cross-over SUVs                    3,500lbs                      48

Minivans                                  4,500lbs                      40

Import Luxury cars                   4,000lbs                     35

http://energy.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/aps-ppt-wenzel.pdf

This data is from a different range of years, and formatted differently, so there isn't 100% agreement, but it shows the same trend - or rather, lack-there-of: there is absolutely no direct correlation between vehicle weight and risk of fatality.

Even within a single body type: cross-over SUVs weigh less than truck-based, yet have lower fatality rates.

Minivans weigh less than full-size vans, yet have lower fatality rates.

Mid-size cars weigh less than full-size, yet have lower fatality rates.

Notice that the authors of this study divided sub-compacts into two categories, because the range of data points was so wide.  Were they lumped together (as is often the case), the really bad ones would seemingly drag the safer ones down with them, making the entire category look bad, when its really a specific set of them. 
The lower risk subcompacts were found in real world crash statistics to have LOWER FATALITY RATES THAN TRUCKS OF ALL SIZES, up to and including the largest category of "passenger" truck, the 1-ton; which, despite the name, weigh in the range of 3-4 tons, up to 4 times as much as the sub-compacts that are safer than them.

Here is yet more data, in case you like graphs better than charts:

This graph is counting fatalities per crash, so its already assuming a crash occurs:

(from: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/808570.pdf )

And this one, specifically for the type of crash where weight matters most: frontal collision with another vehicle

(from: http://energy.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/aps-ppt-wenzel.pdf )

You can download the original full reports if you want all the details, but the important thing to take away from these you can see at a glance: the dots are all over the place.  There is no trend for the lighter cars to have more fatalities, whether you look at per vehicle, per accident, or even per accident involving another car.

This should be enough.

Case closed.

The data is clear: heavier cars aren't safer.

But of course it isn't so simple.  Not because the facts are complicated, but because the human mind is complicated.

We aren't optimized to think in terms of statistics, we are optimized to think in anecdote.

And so when the most well-intentioned people attempt to study auto safety in order to improve it, even professional researchers fall victim to the same faulty reasoning and assumptions as the general public, generalizing things like "common sense" and "crash test data" to actual real-world risk.

And so, despite what the actual information about the real world clearly shows, even the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) claims

"All other things being equal, occupants in a bigger, heavier vehicle are better protected than those in a smaller, lighter vehicle." 

That sentence stands alone, as though it were universally factually accurate... but then soon after it is qualified by the important distinction that makes it accurate:

"Weight comes into play in a collision involving two vehicles. The bigger vehicle will push the lighter one backward during the impact. As a result, there will be less force on the occupants of the heavier vehicle and more on the people in the lighter vehicle."

(Then, to demonstrate this, they have a graph not of vehicle weight, but of vehicle size relative to risk (the bigger in size, the bigger the crumple zone))

This second sentence is actuate, and it is where all the confusion comes from.

The qualifier is nearly always neglected, but it absolutely completely 100% changes the context and meaning of the entire idea.

A heavier car is safer IN A HEAD-ON COLLISION WITH ANOTHER VEHICLE.

Here's the thing about that, though:

Most car accidents aren't head-on collisions with other vehicles.

In fact, the majority of them aren't.

In fact, the vast majority of them aren't.

Head-on collisions only make up 2% of all car crashes!!

(They make up 9% of fatalities, so even limiting to severe accidents, they are relatively insignificant - 89% of fatal accidents are not head-on)

In comparison, rear-end accidents make of 32% of all crashes.

Collision with fixed objects make up 33.5% of all crashes.

Rollovers accounts for 10%

In a collision with a solid object, like a concrete barrier or a tree, the total deceleration will be the same whether you are in a mini car or a land yacht: essentially whatever speed you were going to zero instantly.

In a rear-end accident, your car gets pushed forward, and instead of jerk, you just get acceleration.  The energy is absorbed by the movement of your vehicle.  You may get whiplash, but you don't get dead.

Consider the most extreme scenario: you are in a passenger car, and you get hit from behind by a 80,000 lbs semi-truck.

As long as you don't aren't pushed into the car ahead of you and get smushed (which you won't, if you leave proper following distances) the fatality rate is only 0.34%

Even if you get hit from behind by a vehicle that weighs 40 tons, about 20 times more than your car, you have a 9,966 in 10,000 chance of survival.

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/research-technology/analysis/rear-end-crashes.htm

Least you think that's only because rear-end collisions only happen at low speed, when its the cars hitting the semi's, the fatality rate is about 4 times higher - for the car, running into the semi is almost as bad as running into a brick wall.  When its the semi hitting the car, the car gets pushed forward, the movement absorbs the kinetic injury, and everyone is happy and smiling.

This shows two things: 1) Rear-end accidents are rarely fatal regardless of size differential, and 2) the direction an impact comes from absolutely does change whether weight matters.

If the mass differential of a semi-truck - 80,000lbs - vs a car - 4000lbs - is so insignificant, what do you think the impact of mass is on a rear-end collision between a 2000lb car and a 4000lb car?  The answer is none.

In a side impact the situation is similar: the impact force in tangential to your momentum, and so the amount of momentum you have is irrelevant.  Simple thought experiment: whether you are speeding or at a stand still, getting broad-sided will impact you equally hard.  Momentum doesn't matter.  But then why would mass? 

In fact the IIHS themselves - the very people who state categorically on their consumer website that "heavy cars are safer", say explicitly elsewhere on their consumer site:

"Unlike frontal crash test ratings, side ratings can be compared across vehicle type and weight categories. This is because the kinetic energy involved in the side test depends on the weight and speed of the moving barrier, which are the same in every test."

In other words, in a side-impact crash, your car's weight makes absolutely no difference.

But side-impacts make up 23% of crashes, and 18% of fatalities (compared to 2% and 9% for frontal crashes), so this rather undermines their own claim about the impact of weight.

In roll-overs, too, weight does nothing to improve your chances.

Fixed objects, rear-ends, side-impacts, roll overs - in 98% of all crashes, extra weight does literally nothing to protect you.

How much sense does it make that simulated two-vehicle frontal impact tests are the standard for "crash testing", when it is one of the least common types of crash?

So what about those few times you are actually on a high-speed undivided back-country highway, and some drunk crosses over the double yellow lines?

Even then, weight is not the most important factor.

KE=½ mass X velocity²
Kinetic Energy= (1/2 of mass) X (Speed squared)

The impact of your relative speeds is squared (multiplied by itself).  The impact of weight is divided by two.  The speed you are going is overwhelmingly more important than how heavy your car is.

Ok, so...

If there is all this evidence that weight really doesn't matter that much to safety, then why does everyone - even people who's entire job is analyzing car crashes, keep repeating the same myth?

Perhaps for the same reason you, the reader, are still not convinced.

Because, on a purely intuitive level, this belief feels like it makes sense.

It is an extension of the (equally false) assumption that being in a car is safer than being on a motorcycle: "because the steel cage protects you".

How could you not feel safer in a nice strong cage than exposed to the world?

Here's the thing about that though: a steel cage does not "absorb" the crash energy.  It TRANSMITS it.  It transmits it through the steel structure of itself, and on to you.  The stronger it is, the more effectively that force is transmitted.  Think about the "Newton's cradle" desk toy:

5 steel balls on strings, the first one is given a swing, and when it hits the rest, the force travels right though them to the last one.  The last one takes just as much impact as it would if the first hit it directly, because the others are solid, and the force just goes right through them.  It doesn't even matter that the 3 in the center have a combined mass of 3 times as much as the two on the ends.  The one on the end is in no way "protected" by them, as they don't "absorb" any of the force, they simply transmit it.

Because it feels right intuitively, and because it is repeated as a given almost universally, no amount of text is going to help people understand the error of this belief.

They say a picture is worth 1000 words, so a moving picture has got to be worth even more:

Here is perhaps a less abstract way to think of it:

Imagine that, instead of being inside a car, you are standing in front of one that is parked.  It is parked in neutral, with no parking brake on, but it is on perfectly flat ground, so it doesn't move.  You are just standing there, minding your own business, when a truck comes along and runs into the car.  Imagine how this will affect you.  Is the mass of the car going to somehow magically absorb the impact energy and make it go away?  No, of course not, its going to start moving forward.  And then its going to hit you, with close to as much force as if the truck had just hit you directly.

But if the mass of the car doesn't do anything to protect you when it is fully between the truck and your body, why would it do anymore to protect you if you are inside of it?

The answer is that it doesn't.  Like the Newton's cradle, the steel frame of a car simply transmits the force of any impacts on to you.

This is why modern cars have crumple zones.  They are deliberately, by design, weaker than the solid steel tanks of the past. Of course they aren't arbitrarily weaker - the human containing cabin is made stiff, while the front and rear are made soft on purpose so they take the impact energy.

Take, for example, this crash test between an old tank of a car and its modern descendant (which, incidentally, is about 200lbs lighter)

http://youtu.be/mJ5PcWziXT0

But even with crumple zones, having a steel cage doesn't do much to keep you safe on its own.  Another major difference between the old and new cars is seat belts and airbags.

Seatbelts and airbags don't actually protect you from the car that crashes into you.  They protect you from you hitting the inside of your own car.  The entire reason for having seat belts and airbags is to protect you FROM the steel cage you are riding in.

Again, this may be easier to fully grasp in cartoon form:

Given that a car has seatbelts and airbags (and that you actually use them) to protect you from the steel and glass of your own car, having strategically placed crumple zones outside of a stronger solid frame around the passenger compartment creates infinitely more safety in a crash than increasing mass, as shown in the crash test above, where the slightly lighter car completely obliterates the poor crash test dummy in the older car.

But even with two misunderstandings corrected, we are still looking at the entire question the entirely wrong way!

Because we are still thinking in terms of how survivable the passenger compartment of our car is, in the event of a severe crash.

This means we are treating severe crashes as though they are inevitable. In the real world, of course, since about 98% of accidents are caused by human error, its fair to say that nearly all accidents are avoidable.  They shouldn't even be called "accidents", because it makes it sound like its just some random thing that happens.  Really the VAST majority of auto collisions are due directly to negligence, on the part of one or both drivers.  If everyone drove below the speed limit, left large following gaps, refrained from alcohol and drugs, avoided all electronic distractions, and focused on driving safely, the fatal accident rate would drop from the single largest cause of accidental death to fairly negligible.  Combined with proper maintenance, it would be barely above zero.

So if severe accidents aren't actually inevitable, maybe instead of just focusing on likelihood of surviving an accident, it would make more sense to factor in the risk of getting into an accident in the first place.
Ask yourself: Which would you rather do, crash and survive, or not crash in the first place?

So then you have to wonder, what factors might reduce the chances of getting into a crash?

Well, imagie you are going 60MPH in a 5,500lb Ford Expedition on a rural highway, and a truck pulls out from a cross street 140 feet ahead of you. If you instantly apply maximum brakes (ignoring reaction time, which is the same regardless of vehicle) you are going to slam into it at roughly 35mph, the same speed that crash tests are conducted at, and enough to cause very serious injury.

If, however, you were driving the 3000lb Ford Focus, and were in the exact same situation, you would be able to come to a full stop a full 26 feet in front of the truck.

All other things being equal, smaller cars tend to have better braking distances, more maneuverability, and frequently better 360 degree roadway visibility for the driver compared to a larger vehicle.

Comparing trucks and SUVs to cars, due to their higher clearance, are far more likely to roll over, an event with a higher risk of fatality than most accident types.
In addition to all those factors making them capable of avoiding accidents better, the lack of (false) perception of safety may encourage drivers of small cars to take fewer stupid risks (which are, ultimately, the cause of almost all accidents).  The very fact that people feel safe in big vehicles make them do more stupid stuff, like speeding and reckless driving, than the drivers of smaller vehicles.  It's called risk compensation - and its counter-productive when the assessment of risk is completely wrong.

Extra mass only comes into play in a helpful way in 2% of crashes.  In the other 98% it is neutral at best - but in some percent, it is almost certainly a contributing factor - not only because of worse braking distance and handling, but also by encouraging drivers to drive worse.  In that last 2% mass helps, but not nearly as much as people assume.

This myth has been a significant driver of the trend of average passenger vehicles on the road to get heavier and heavier, as consumers pick cars that feel "safe", fueled by crash tests ratings being treated interchangeably with "safety", and official proclamations by official agencies.  One thing that is shown consistently in the statistics is that heavier cars and trucks are definitely much more deadly on average to the people they hit.  So the net effect is more traffic fatalities overall.   This is more than just counterproductive.  It is tragic.

Every time you here this myth repeated, think about the cartoons above.  Think about the graphs and charts. 
And don't let the myth influence your next car purchase.

Refuting the theory that physiologically facilitating rape is "self-protective"

I've been surprised to come across more and more references lately to a relatively new theory among some sex researchers that the reason women reflexively lubricate to certain stimuli which they don't self-report as being arousing is that it evolved as the body's way of protecting itself in the case of sexual assault.

Here is an example:

Genital response to sexual stimuli may be an evolved self-protection mechanism. Female genital response is an automatic reflex that is elicited by sexual stimuli and produces vaginal lubrication, even if the woman does not subjectively feel sexually aroused...Female genital response entails increased genital vasocongestion, necessary for the production of vaginal lubrication, and can, in turn, reduce discomfort and the possibility of injury during vaginal penetration. Ancestral women who did not show an automatic vaginal response to sexual cues may have been more likely to experience injuries that resulted in illness, infertility, or even death subsequent to unexpected or unwanted vaginal penetration, and thus would be less likely to have passed on this trait to their offspring....Reports of women's genital response and orgasm during sexual assaults suggests that genital responses do occur in women under conditions of sexual threat.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-sex-and-babies/201105/why-do-women-get-physically-aroused-and-not-even-know-it

The first time I saw it it immediately struck me as suspect and I questioned it in the comments of the webpage that quoted it, and went on to forget it.  But since then I've seen several more allusions to the same theory by different researchers in different contexts, and its really starting to bug me.

As I talked about in great length in my previous post, there is a nearly universal - albeit frequently subconscious - assumption in human society that women are inherently prone to being victims.  This (largely baseless) assumption is just as strong among feminists as it is among traditionalists and patriarchs, although it takes different forms.

Obviously I would be delusional if I thought scientists were above social bias and herd mind, but I am disappointed that there doesn't seem to be anyone else questioning the theory that deliberately facilitating rape is a self-protective mechanism.

The theory in regards to the threat of rape is bad enough.  But let me start with an even more ridiculous theory - a good number of sex researchers have actually suggested that this same rape facilitation mechanism is the reason that women are found to have physical arousal from various sexually themed images and stories which they subjectively report as not being sexy, including not only depictions of rape, but also lesbian sex and, in at least one case, monkey sex.
Here's a couple examples of this theory being presented:

"women’s genital responses are usually non-specific: self-identified hetereosexual women have been shown to have similar genital responses to stimuli that depict hetereosexual, gay, or lesbian sex (Chivers et al., 2004). Women even show some genital responses to nonhuman primates having sex, while men do not (Chivers & Bailey, 2005). Importantly, this genital arousal in women seems to be automatic: it occurs before women even report feeling aroused (Laan, 1994) and even when they are not aware of its presence (Ponseti & Bosinski, 2010).

Men and women, then, seem to have strong differences in the type of stimuli that causes genital arousal. What might have caused this? It has been suggested that there is a functional account of the nonspecificity and automaticity of female genital arousal: The Preparation Hypothesis. It has been shown that increased blood flow is a precursor to vaginal lubrication (Levin, 2003) and suggested that this may serve as a protective function for women engaged in intercourse – consensual or otherwise (Chivers, 2005)." http://www.jimaceverett.com/genital_lubrication.html

 And:

"Men’s genital arousal occurs in response to a limited number of sexual stimuli, whereas women’s genital arousal occurs in response to a wide range of sexual stimuli, including those depicting nonpreferred cues. Researchers have hypothesized that women’s nonspecific pattern of genital arousal prepares the body for sexual activity, thus functioning to protect the genital organs against injury. If this hypothesis is correct, women should show genital responses to any cues suggesting sexual activity..."  http://www.centenary.edu/attachments/psychology/journal/archive/mar2011journalclub.pdf

And:

"Women, she says, are physically aroused by non-specific stimuli, everything from copulating primates to two men having sex. Even rape scenes can trigger a physical response...Dr. Chivers looks at the question from an evolutionary standpoint. As modern humans evolved, women who became lubricated at the slightest sexual signal would have been less likely to get injured or to contract diseases during sex, especially if it was forced on them. It could be a protective mechanism." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/incoming/her-parts-desire/article1154587/

First of all, the theory doesn't even fit with available information.  One study after another, with different researchers and different methods of determining arousal (vaginal lubrication, blood flow, heart rate, pupil dilation, brain scans) have all consistently found that the majority of women - regardless of stated sexual orientation, fetishes and preferences, exhibit physiological arousal from straight, gay male, and lesbian sexual imagry.  Some have even found arousal in response to images of non-humans engaged in sex.
However, one thing that consistently fails to elicit a response is images of an erect human penis without a larger sexual context.
These theories for why women are so easily aroused by so many things (compared to men), echos the theory presented above in regards to assault - women's physical arousal is on a hair trigger for the purpose of facilitating being raped without injury.

It shouldn't take much to realize how absolutely stupid that theory is - which would women in the early stages of human evolution facing a threat of rape be more likely to see: two women having sex, two monkeys having sex, or an erect human penis?
How often in human evolutionary theory were women presented with the threat of injury due to attempted rape by lesbians, gay men, or monkeys?  Probably close to never percent of the time.
In contrast, heterosexual non-consensual intercourse forced by a male attacker would include an erect penis exactly always percent of the time.
This theory is so unbelievably nonsensical that I am literally at a loss for how to express just how stupid it is.
And yet it is being suggested by quite a few otherwise respectable intelligent psychologists and sociologists and other sex researchers who work on investigating this sort of thing scientifically for a living!


I won't go any further in debunking the "women lubricate to lesbian porn so they won't be injured by male rapists" line of reasoning, because it is just plain stupid.

Instead, for the rest of this I'll focus on what appears on the surface to at least be logically consistent (although still wrong): that women are physically turned on by the threat of rape as a method of self-protection.

If the goal of self-preservation were primarily to avoid inducing others to injure you, then our response to threat from other humans would be neither Fight nor Flight.  It would be Stay Perfectly Still, or perhaps Lie Down and Cry. 

Human beings have the longest time to maturity, the most investment of any creature that requires parental care.   This is almost certainly the reason why human females are much more selective of mating partners than both human males, and females of pretty much every other specie. 

Further, outside of modern medical intervention, childbirth is frequently the single largest cause of death of women of child bearing age.

If the human female has evolved to increase the risk of undesired pregnancy by facilitating rape, in order to avoid what would most likely amount to comparatively minor cuts and bruises would be more than a little counter-productive.

And then there's that other little glaring piece of the equation; which I just don't understand how it escapes the attention of anyone presented with this theory...

There are two humans involved in intercourse, and both are using sensitive and vulnerable body parts!  The theory pre-supposes that the vagina is soft and easily damaged, while the penis is somehow solid and indestructible - even though everyone knows this is false.  The penis may be a symbol of strength, dominance, and power in human culture, but it is in actuality at risk of serious, painful, and rather dramatic injury from intercourse without sufficient lubrication and/or at the wrong angle. 

My own, counter-theory, is that if, hypothetically, the response of the vagina to non-sexually-arousing stimulus was to become as dry as possible and for all the muscles to forceful contract, were a male rapist to attempt to proceed anyway it would cause at least as much physical injury to his sex parts as to hers, if not more.

I attempted to look up any medical reports or injury statistics that might confirm or refute that idea.  I looked for anything about penile injuries during attempted or successful rape.  I looked for for information about penile injuries during consensual but insufficiently lubricated anal intercourse.  I looked for data on penile injury in either consensual or non-consensual prison sex, or about the rate and methods of lubrication used. As far as I can tell, none of this information has ever been collected, by anyone.   The only thing I can find is confirmation that such injuries are possible, and they do happen, but zero about how common they are, or how often it is successfully avoided sans lubricant, or what the relative rates of injury or pain to "giver" and "receiver" are in any of those scenarios.

The closest I found was this study of a random sample of men in Kenya which was specifically looking for differences in penile injury rate related to circumcision and its affect on HIV transmission.

They found a majority of subjects reported at least a minor injury due to sex in just the past 6 months.  This (unless an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of Kenyan men happen to be gay or rapists) is with ordinary consensual vaginal intercourse.  Nearly half reported cuts, abrasions or bleeding.  The majority were minor enough that they would have not sought medical treatment, and therefor would never have been reported.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3090633/

Though Kenya is not specifically known for the practice, a number of southern African nations have a cultural preference for "dry" sex - i.e. many women make a deliberate effort, often using external agents, to prevent "excessive" natural lubrication.  Sources conflict over whether this is intended solely for male pleasure, or to increase pleasure for both genders.

"Brown et al. found that many women respondents express a clear preference for dry, tight, sex. Respondents believe that if a man has a small penis, powders help create a good feeling for the woman. One woman explains, “A women feels no pleasure when the vagina has too much liquid.”(11)"

http://www.consultancyafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1019:dry-tight-and-warm-dry-sex-practices-in-central-and-southern-africa-&catid=59:gender-issues-discussion-papers&Itemid=267

Looking further into reports of deliberate dry sex, researches almost exclusively focus on potential injury to the female as a result (much like research into intercourse caused injury in anal and non-consensual sex in the US) - however the reports do at least frequently acknowledge that the risk of injury goes both ways:

When asked specifically about any harmful effects of vaginal tightness and dryness, some participants admitted that an extremely dry vagina could cause problems. One man reported, “It’s natural for all guys to go crazy for a woman who is dry, but you have to make love carefully. If you want to be rough, you can get hurt. A man can get cuts and wounds and catch diseases” (Judith Brown, personal communication, November 1999)

http://www.wisdomofwhores.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Halperin-1999-dry.pdf

The materials used for vaginal practices include traditional herbs
and an array of natural products as well as common commercial p
roducts such as alum, boric acid, and bactericides. According to Halperin, many women use these produc ts for ‘dry sex.’ Their partners have been found to suffer penile injuries, lacerations to the foreskin, and bleeding (Halperin 1999).

http://paa2007.princeton.edu/papers/7131

Respondents believe that the man should hurt or suffer a little during penetration [Brown et. al]

http://www.consultancyafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1019:dry-tight-and-warm-dry-sex-practices-in-central-and-southern-africa-&catid=59:gender-issues-discussion-papers&Itemid=267

Unfortunately, none of them have any mention of the relative prevalence of pain or injury to male vs female partners.

I've found two sources with relative numbers - though neither is specifically regarding insufficient lubrication. 

In a cross-sectional survey of general population residents of Cape Town, South Africa, 21% of men and 16% of women reported coital bleeding in the past 3 months,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16688100

Unfortunately, the summary does not distinguish between menses bleeding (the majority of reports) and injury, and it is unclear if the reports were of either partner's bleeding, or of self only.  Either way it seems likely that those numbers indicate the frequency of injury to men to be higher.  The initial paper likely does, but it has not yet been made available

The most conclusive I could find was this:

In all, 1454 cases of reported coital injuries were reviewed; 790 occurred in men while 664 occurred in women, mainly in the genital area. Physical urological complications were more common in men than in women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11856110/

Which, again, is not specific to insufficient lubrication, but it shows a very clear higher risk of injury to male genitalia from various forms of sexual contact than to female.

This completely undermines the "self-protection from rape via facilitating rape" theory.

The opposite reaction would likely cause greater injury to an attacker than to the victim, and would therefore discourage rapists from attempting it in the first place.

Of course the fact remains that women do produce lubrication in response to sexually explicit stimuli which they subjectively report as not being arousing, and the reason for that is still in question.  I offer no theory of my own at this time (although the very first article I posted - http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-sex-and-babies/201105/why-do-women-get-physically-aroused-and-not-even-know-it - offers 3 alternative possible explanations, and this study goes into much much greater detail than most, and offers a pletora of insights: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/ ).

My only purpose here is questioning the validity of the "facilitating rape is self-protective" claim, the very idea of which I suspect is only possible in a society with a deeply internalized misogyny.

[much more evidence of our deeply internalized misogyny here: http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2013/01/RapeAndFeminismPage1.html ]

Refuting the theory that physiologically facilitating rape is "self-protective"

I've been surprised to come across more and more references lately to a relatively new theory among some sex researchers that the reason women reflexively lubricate to certain stimuli which they don't self-report as being arousing is that it evolved as the body's way of protecting itself in the case of sexual assault.

Here is an example:

Genital response to sexual stimuli may be an evolved self-protection mechanism. Female genital response is an automatic reflex that is elicited by sexual stimuli and produces vaginal lubrication, even if the woman does not subjectively feel sexually aroused...Female genital response entails increased genital vasocongestion, necessary for the production of vaginal lubrication, and can, in turn, reduce discomfort and the possibility of injury during vaginal penetration. Ancestral women who did not show an automatic vaginal response to sexual cues may have been more likely to experience injuries that resulted in illness, infertility, or even death subsequent to unexpected or unwanted vaginal penetration, and thus would be less likely to have passed on this trait to their offspring....Reports of women's genital response and orgasm during sexual assaults suggests that genital responses do occur in women under conditions of sexual threat.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-sex-and-babies/201105/why-do-women-get-physically-aroused-and-not-even-know-it

The first time I saw it it immediately struck me as suspect and I questioned it in the comments of the webpage that quoted it, and went on to forget it.  But since then I've seen several more allusions to the same theory by different researchers in different contexts, and its really starting to bug me.

As I talked about in great length in my previous post, there is a nearly universal - albeit frequently subconscious - assumption in human society that women are inherently prone to being victims.  This (largely baseless) assumption is just as strong among feminists as it is among traditionalists and patriarchs, although it takes different forms.

Obviously I would be delusional if I thought scientists were above social bias and herd mind, but I am disappointed that there doesn't seem to be anyone else questioning the theory that deliberately facilitating rape is a self-protective mechanism.

If the goal of self-preservation were primarily to avoid inducing others to injure you, than our response to threat from other humans would be neither Fight nor Flight.  It would be Stay Perfectly Still, or perhaps Lie Down and Cry. 

Human beings have the longest time to maturity, the most investment of any creature that requires parental care.   This is almost certainly the reason why human females are much more selective of mating partners than both human males, and females of pretty much every other specie. 

Further, outside of modern medical intervention, childbirth is frequently the single largest cause of death of women of child bearing age.

If the human female has evolved to increase the risk of undesired pregnancy by facilitating rape, in order to avoid what would most likely amount to comparatively minor cuts and bruises would be more than a little counter-productive.

And then there's that other little glaring piece of the equation; which I just don't understand how it escapes the attention of anyone presented with this theory...

There are two humans involved in intercourse, and both are using sensitive and vulnerable body parts!  The theory pre-supposes that the vagina is soft and easily damaged, while the penis is somehow solid and indestructible - even though everyone knows this is false.  The penis may be a symbol of strength, dominance, and power in human culture, but it is in actuality at risk of serious, painful, and rather dramatic injury from intercourse without sufficient lubrication and/or at the wrong angle. 

My own, counter-theory, is that if, hypothetically, the response of the vagina to non-sexually-arousing stimulus was to become as dry as possible and for all the muscles to forceful contract, were a male rapist to attempt to proceed anyway it would cause at least as much physical injury to his sex parts as to hers, if not more.

I attempted to look up any medical reports or injury statistics that might confirm or refute that idea.  I looked for anything about penile injuries during attempted or successful rape.  I looked for for information about penile injuries during concensual but insufficently lubricated anal intercourse.  I looked for data on penile injury in either consensual or non-consensual prison sex, or about the rate and methods of lubrication used. As far as I can tell, none of this information has ever been collected, by anyone.   The only thing I can find is confirmation that such injuries are possible, and they do happen, but zero about how common they are, or how often it is successfully avoided sans lubricant, or what the relative rates of injury or pain to "giver" and "receiver" are in any of those scenarios.

The closest I found was this study of a random sample of men in Kenya which was specifically looking for differences in penile injury rate related to circumcision and its affect on HIV transmission.

They found a majority of subjects reported at least a minor injury due to sex in just the past 6 months.  This (unless an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of Kenyan men happen to be gay or rapists) is with ordinary consensual vaginal intercourse.  Nearly half reported cuts, abrasions or bleeding.  The majority were minor enough that they would have not sought medical treatment, and therefor would never have been reported.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3090633/

Though Kenya is not specifically known for the practice, a number of southern African nations have a cultural preference for "dry" sex - i.e. many women make a deliberate effort, often using external agents, to prevent "excessive" natural lubrication.  Sources conflict over whether this is intended solely for male pleasure, or to increase pleasure for both genders.

"Brown et al. found that many women respondents express a clear preference for dry, tight, sex. Respondents believe that if a man has a small penis, powders help create a good feeling for the woman. One woman explains, “A women feels no pleasure when the vagina has too much liquid.”(11)"

http://www.consultancyafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1019:dry-tight-and-warm-dry-sex-practices-in-central-and-southern-africa-&catid=59:gender-issues-discussion-papers&Itemid=267

Looking further into reports of deliberate dry sex, researches almost exclusively focus on potential injury to the female as a result (much like research into intercourse caused injury in anal and non-consensual sex in the US) - however the reports do at least frequently acknowledge that the risk of injury goes both ways:

When asked specifically about any harmful effects of vaginal tightness and dryness, some participants admitted that an extremely dry vagina could cause problems. One man reported, “It’s natural for all guys to go crazy for a woman who is dry, but you have to make love carefully. If you want to be rough, you can get hurt. A man can get cuts and wounds and catch diseases” (Judith Brown, personal communication, November 1999)

http://www.wisdomofwhores.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Halperin-1999-dry.pdf

The materials used for vaginal practices include traditional herbs
and an array of natural products as well as common commercial p
roducts such as alum, boric acid, and bactericides. According to Halperin, many women use these produc ts for ‘dry sex.’ Their partners have been found to suffer penile injuries, lacerations to the foreskin, and bleeding (Halperin 1999).

http://paa2007.princeton.edu/papers/7131

Respondents believe that the man should hurt or suffer a little during penetration [Brown et. al]

http://www.consultancyafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1019:dry-tight-and-warm-dry-sex-practices-in-central-and-southern-africa-&catid=59:gender-issues-discussion-papers&Itemid=267

Unfortunately, none of them have any mention of the relative prevalence of pain or injury to male vs female partners.

I've found two sources with relative numbers - though neither is specifically regarding insufficient lubrication. 

In a cross-sectional survey of general population residents of Cape Town, South Africa, 21% of men and 16% of women reported coital bleeding in the past 3 months,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16688100

Unfortunately, the summary does not distinguish between menses bleeding (the majority of reports) and injury, and it is unclear if the reports were of either partner's bleeding, or of self only.  Either way it seems likely that those numbers indicate the frequency of injury to men to be higher.  The initial paper likely does, but it has not yet been made available

The most conclusive I could find was this:

In all, 1454 cases of reported coital injuries were reviewed; 790 occurred in men while 664 occurred in women, mainly in the genital area. Physical urological complications were more common in men than in women.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11856110/

Which, again, is not specific to insufficient lubrication, but it shows a very clear higher risk of injury to male genitalia from various forms of sexual contact than to female.

This completely undermines the "self-protection from rape via facilitating rape" theory.

The opposite reaction would likely cause greater injury to an attacker than to the victim, and would therefore discourage rapists from attempting it in the first place.

Of course the fact remains that women do produce lubrication in response to sexually explicit stimuli which they subjectively report as not being arousing, and the reason for that is still in question.  I offer no theory of my own at this time (although the very first article I posted - http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-sex-and-babies/201105/why-do-women-get-physically-aroused-and-not-even-know-it - offers 3 alternative possible explanations).  My only purpose here is questioning the validity of the "facilitating rape is self-protective" claim, the very idea of which I suspect is only possible in a society with a deeply internalized misogyny.

[much more evidence of our deeply internalized misogyny here: http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2013/01/RapeAndFeminismPage1.html ]

"Culture" and "Race" are not interchangeable

Take a look at the following 10 people, one at a time

Think about who they are.

What do they likely do for work?  How much do they make?  What do they enjoy doing on their off time?  What would you guess their religion is, what kind of food do they eat, where did they grow up, and how do they vote?  Who do they socialize with, and what inspires their morality?

Tell a story about each one.

Also:  Where are these people probably from?  What is the cultural background of each person?  What is their ethnic heritage?

What is each one's race?

How do you know?

A reader recently sent me a link to an article about housing discrimination:
http://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=37414

(and, oddly enough, it was not in response to my recent controversial post on race, but rather on a fairly neutral post on perception, ideology, and the naturally unscientific human brain.)

Its quite short, but if you don't care to read it, I'll summarize it briefly:

A Black professor had just moved to teach at Stanford, and was looking for a place to live.  Upon arriving at a place, he was told by 4 landlords that the apartment had already been rented to someone else.

He suspected the landlords were lying, because they didn't want a Black tenant, and as a way of testing this theory, he started responding to ads while deliberately talking in what he called "an African-American or Latino accent", or in "professional standard English".

His theory of discrimination was supported by the rates at which each accent generated a call back and an offer to view an apartment.

Discrimination, obviously.

But was it racism?

When the professor spoke in professional standard English, his calls were returned and he was offered a chance to follow up.

But here is the key point that both he and the post's author seem to have neglected:

When he spoke in professional standard English, he was still Black!

Which means the landlords were discriminating, but not necessarily on the basis of race.  They were discriminating on the basis of culture.  And it is fair to question whether that discrimination is actually unreasonable.

Suppose instead of "professional standard English" to simulate "white", he had said:

Wal how does y'all? I’s mahnear fixna move, an' so I's recon I'd call an' git up wit' yo' 'bout thet thar hase yo' haf advahtised in th' paper.

We don't know what the response rate really would have been, since he didn't try it, but we can probably safely guess that it would have been lower than for the professional English accent.  Why?  Because they way a person talks often is at least somewhat an indication of their level of education.  And a person's level of education is frequently associated with their level of income, their stability, and their responsibility.  These are all things which matter to a landlord, because they are trusting someone with what is likely their most valuable asset and a significant portion of their income.

Certainly people with low education can still be responsible and economically secure, and people with thick accents can be educated, and that's where the prejudice lies.

This isn't to say that many landlords (and employers, and judges, and cops) may not also be racist.  But the mere fact of discriminating on cultural lines does not at all imply it, and almost never do anti-racism activists take that distinction into account when trying to prove their case via statistics.

Yes, its true that the person who drives this car is likely to be watched a little more closely by the cops:

But then again, the people who drive these...

...are all more likely to get more police attention than the people who drive these:

Not because of being able to guess the race of the driver, but because choosing to drive those particular vehicles is a possible sign that the person belongs to a subculture which, among other things, has a lack of respect for certain laws.

In other words: if you sag your pants, you don't get to claim that you are discriminated against because of your race.

If you speak "ebonics", you don't get to claim you are being discriminated against because of your race.

And here people generally object that I am saying that in order to be accepted, black people should "act white".

Except, as I already pointed out, there is a world of difference between the accent, slang, and culture of your stereotypical "Deliverance" type inbred Southern country redneck, hick, hillbilly and/or bumpkin, and a Stanford Professor (whether white or black).

So many people have claimed that the dialect of poor uneducated urban black people should be legitimized that the term "ebonics" itself is recognized by non-linguists.

And few seem to notice how extremely racist that is.

It is not unique to modern America, nor to racial sub-cultures, that poor uneducated people distort the predominate language of the society they live in.

Take, for example, the 1912 English play "Pygmalion" (known to American's as "My Fair Lady") in which two high society types make a bet over whether a low class girl can be made to fit into respectable society by teaching her to speak properly.  There is zero race element involved:  this is England in 1912 - everyone is white.  This is about class, and it's affect on education.  No one has ever tried to give poor white slang (British or American) its own name, and suggested deliberately teaching it in schools.

The attempt to legitimize it in the case of (poor urban) black people is equivalent to saying "yours is naturally the culture of poverty".  To say that speaking proper English is "trying to sound white" is saying "If you are Black, you should sound ignorant."

The linguistic history of the way in which many poor black urban people speak does not trace itself back to any African roots.  It did not develop from slaves holding onto their native languages and incorporating old and new words to build an African / English hybrid language.  It developed for the same reason redneck and cockney and the lower-class and rural versions of every other language did: the lower-classes are denied access to education. 
Suggesting that speaking proper English is trying to "be white" is like telling black people they should voluntarily ride on the back of the bus in order to honor their heritage.

When a person grows up on a backcountry Southern farm, gets good grades in high-school, goes on to college, and starts a successful business, few chastise that person for speaking standard American English.  Few say that they are denying their heritage by not continuing to talk in the style of the independent paragraph above.  Few say they are "trying to be urban mid-western" or "trying to be urban northern Californian", (which are the accents which most America's think of as a "neutral" American accent, even among people who have a different accent themselves.)

Looking back at the cars and clothing above; does it count as a prejudice to suspect a person of having a higher than average chance of criminal conduct if they have made a deliberate choice to externally identify as part of a sub-culture which, among other things, accepts - or even glorify - criminal conduct?  Is it prejudice to suspect Bubba-Joe Jed Walker of being a moonshiner before suspecting Chris Johnson?  Is it prejudice to suspect the guy driving the lowered Honda with a spoiler and tinted windows is more likely to speed than the person driving a Yaris?  Or to suspect the Harley rider to have a higher chance of drunk driving, or the raised pick-up driver more likely to have a gun?

As soon as you cross the line from "I have a higher suspicion" to "I am sure that this particular person is guilty" then it becomes prejudice.  Until then, all you are doing is recognizing patterns.  That's one of those things the human brain does that allows us to function in the real world.

There are always going to be some people who can't make that distinction.  Even after they meet the goose that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and the goose explains that it is a goose that grew up around ducks, but that it has rejected the negative aspects of duck culture even while appropriating those that it personally enjoys, those people will still insist on calling the goose a duck, and treating it as such.  But the vast majority can and do make that distinction.

This is why I, a Black male who grew up and spent most of his life in a poor, high crime area, can say that, no, actually, I haven't ever been unfairly targeted by the cops, I haven't ever been followed in a store, I haven't been unfairly denied a chance at jobs or housing that I was qualified for, and the only two times I have been called a derogatory race-based word (which I will not repeat here, because, in my opinion, it is not anymore ok for me to use just because I happen to be black then it is ok for anyone else to use it) were both by drug-addict white trash at the very bottom of society. 
Because, no matter what initial thought flashes through the sub-conscious of whatever cop / employer / landlord, all it takes is a couple seconds of me opening my mouth and speaking to correct whatever preconceptions they may have had about me as an individual.

This is something we could be teaching our minority urban youth.  It would go a long way to reducing both violence and prejudice.


I have linked to this video before, after the uproar over Oscar Grant's shooting, but it is still a lesson a lot of people need to learn:

Unfortunately, our culture basically teaches young black males the exact opposite lesson - that the cops are out to get them, and they should fight back - with predictable, and not so funny, results.

There are two factors that should be kept in mind when looking at statistics around race.

First, a higher proportion of Black people commit violent crime than other races.  This rate is still very very low, but it is disproportionately high given the size of the population.   This means that the vast majority of people are innocent, but you should still expect the population with the higher level of crime to get the higher level of police attention, even if every cop were color blind.

Second, on top of that, you have a significant portion of the population that deliberately attempts to emulate the criminal subculture.  Its right there in the word!  Gansta.  As in gangster.  As in professional, organized, and violent criminal.  The subculture's media has been explicitly glorifying violence and criminal behavior since about the mid-80s, and it has been one of the dominate influences on culture ever since.  Most people (and birds) mistake the viceroy for the monarch.  That was the viceroy's intention.  It would be odd for the viceroy to get mad at everyone for confusing it with the monarch.  It would be odder still for the birds to internalize that, and feel guilty for having trouble telling them apart.  No one is confusing a red admiral, or a yellow swallowtail for a monarch.  If they were, sure, I'd agree with the suggestion that the person claiming "all butterflies are exactly alike" is being speciest. But before you can call it racism, you have to factor out all the wanna-be viceroys getting pulled over for Driving While Viceroy, because they are representing a sub-culture, not a race.

Will these two factors (actual statistical crime rate, and a sub-culture of emulating criminals) account for 100% of apparent / perceived prejudice?

Probably not. As I have pointed out in the past (Heading 14; in Which Reparations are Still Due and Race (Whites still winning)  and Awareness of White Privilege VS Actually Working to Change it)  the effects of past racism are definitely still a factor in today's society and in the inequality between different races.

But if we are going to have an honest and / or productive discussion about American race relations, everyone needs to be aware of, and acknowledge, that those factors exist.

No one should be punished for attributes they were born with, but it is reasonable to hold people accountable for their choices.

Culture is not race.

Race is not culture.

One you are born with.

The other is a choice.

By the way... you know that purple cowboy in that picture above? 

He's an Aboriginal American ("American Indian" / "Native American"). Not a white guy.

7% of communication is words (not really though)

Just discovered what the ridiculous claim about non-verbal communication probably comes from - you know, where some corporate or academic class on effective communication claims that only 7% of a message is transmitted by the actual words (and the rest by tone and body language)?

This is of course just obviously false on the face of it: if it were true, we could communicate more effectively with someone who spoke a different language but was face-to-face with us than we could with someone who spoke the same language, but via chat (or a blog post).

But those numbers are very specific to just have been randomly made up...
Here's where they come from:
According to pychcology professor Albert Mehrabian:

When you first meet new people, their initial impression of you will be based 55% on your appearance and body-language, 38% on your style of speaking and only 7% on what you actually say.

Impression.
Now that actually makes sense! Not message. Not communication. Impression.

Furthermore, he was speaking specifically about communication about feelings, and the degree to which a person's non-verbal communication matched the verbal - as in, if a person says "I'm fine, really", but they look and sound upset, you are likely to not believe them.

In his own words, regarding this common misinterpretation of his work:

""Total Liking = 7% Verbal Liking + 38% Vocal Liking + 55% Facial Liking. Please note that this and other equations regarding relative importance of verbal and nonverbal messages were derived from experiments dealing with communications of feelings and attitudes (i.e., like–dislike). Unless a communicator is talking about their feelings or attitudes, these equations are not applicable."