I may be coming off that way, but that certainly isn't where I am coming from, as far as I am concerned the fact that there are victim support centres seeing people indicates that there is too many people being assaulted.
My issue is that the statistic is dodgy, and that is no slur against those that composed, and if you are unfamiliar with behavioural studies (which this does fall into) then you look around at your group of friends and go well there are eight of us in the pub so statistically two of us will be raped before we die. Whereas in actuality, removing any emotional attachment and just looking at the bare underlying statistics, is that it is an estimate, and depending what source you use that number varies, if we take the CSEW figure that is 1 in 15 so why discount that figure? Yes 1 in 4 makes a bold impacting headline but then if someone then quotes a source that shows it to be much lower then surely that weakens the argument somewhat. Then does it take into account multiple assaults on the same person? Most assaults are done by people that are known to them, say partner, so if I don't know 50% of all of the rapes are done on the same person then that drops the rate from 1 in 4 to 1 in 8 without adjusting the number of reported cases, just adjusting how you factor it up.
It is like there was a post saying that women only made up 1% of land owners a while ago, when in actuality, the Queen owns over 20%, so that is a fallacy, then you have that the statistic that was being reproduced was actually 1% of agricultural land was owned by women, which is a very different thing to 1% of land. Then when it came down to it it was sourced from a 70s UN report, so is massively out of date, and had no study associated with it, so it was someone's feeling about the number.
Yes I can accept that rape happens and that it should not, yes there is a rape culture, that photograph above shows that this is the case, but this is not what we are talking about, it is the reliability of statistics and how an unreliable stat can undermine ones credibility when making powerful points.
Take for instance studies of adolescence self-harm. If you are to do a survey of those admitted to hospital, then you will see that the vast majority are those that poison themselves.
If you do an anonymous schools survey you will find that the majority of them do cutting.
If you do a survey of mental in-patients then again you get a cutting majority.
So if you scale up from hospital occurrences you get a quite low self harm number, you do it from the school survey and you get a more medium rate number, do it from the in-patient facility and you get a high number. None, of these numbers are "wrong", it is how they are expanded upon and extrapolated from the relatively small sample size (vs total population) where the unreliability comes in. It is not to say that any stats that are extrapolated are useless, or are a deception, just that there is an inherent margin of error.