But what of the “evidence” gathered by feminists and other so-called social scientists in support of their rape-isn’t–about-sex hypothesis? Two psychology professors at the University of Texas in Austin, Del Thiessen and Robert Young, decided to take a look. Professors Thiessen and Young analyzed the bulk of this literature and reported their findings in a 1994 issue of the journal, Society. Their analysis of 1,610 abstracts of sexual coercion studies (with sexual coercion defined as rape, date rape, acquaintance rape, sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and incest) published between 1982 and 1992, revealed unscientific and politically biased studies. For instance, Thiessen and Young reported that only 10 percent of the studies they analyzed had sought to uncover the causes or motivations of sexual coercion, often because the “cause” (i.e., male oppression) had been assumed, though not proven. They also found that only 1.5 percent of the studies examined had even applied a statistical test to a research question. And, significant due to their near complete absence (.002 percent), were studies that addressed biological issues because, as the authors noted, biological theories are considered taboo in the feminist world because they call into question foundational, ideological tenets of feminism. Perhaps most tragic was Thiessen and Young’s observation that little or no progress had been made in understanding sexual coercion because of the unscientific nature of the overwhelming majority of studies in this area.
In a scathing summary of their analysis, Theissen and Young wrote “The possibility exists that feminist interests enforce the orientation of published studies … and reflects the political perspectives of its advocates. … There is a near-total disregard for rigorous testing of hypotheses, quantification of data and possible biological mechanisms. Many studies appear anti-scientific in conception, execution, and interpretation. … But in the politicized arena of ‘women’s issues,’ social expressions are valued beyond scientific progress.”
