Then stop criticizing the mathematics as if you don't understand it and instead criticize the conclusions that are drawn.

The population isn't an even 50% for either gender.

I apologize,

it is 49.2% male and 50.8% female. Rounding to 50% is perfectly reasonable.

The rate of change isn't steady and if you're going to calculate it over time, you're going to have to compensate for it by understanding that the rate of change is not a constant thing

This point was already addressed by the assumptions made though. Not to mention that the

rate of change has been decreasing progressively over the last 20 years, which would inflate values, not deflate them - further burying the "1 in 6" myth. So yes, it's true that rate of change does change, but the measurement of this rate of change is actually greatly against the 1-in-6 statistic's favour.

The number of women changes every year, as does the number of women raped each year.

The 160,000,000 is assumed as a base value of women existing starting at time = 0. It is true that the population of women changes every year, however, women born after this point are not included. The model is based on the idea of watching this base 160,000,000 women from their births to their deaths, and seeing how many in this population. This is modeled off of

longitudinal studies.

As such, the only way this population can be changed in quantity is by these individuals dying. By taking the average female lifespan to be 80 years old, an approximate "1 in whatever" statistic can be calculated. The limitations of the viability of this so-called statistic have been outlined to promote transparency, something that a lot of these so-called rape statistics

**do not** do.

Essentially, I'm running a simplified simulation of taking 160,000,000 individual potential victims and applying 200,000 victims through every cycle of a year, to receive the values that I did.

The difference between the 1 in 6 statistic and the statistics that I am drawing is that the statistics that I am drawing from my models are created to show why the 1 in 6 statistic is likely exaggerated. By proving that it is physically impossible for that statistic to exist, it destroys the claim that this many women will encounter rape. Because of the social implications of such a statistic, it can help reduce fear in women which is heavily instilled in such statistics. Outside of this purpose, my statistics hold no credence and only exist to show why such calculations are not clear or even possibly manipulated.

**Essentially, I do not tell people they have a 1 in 24 chance in being raped, I am saying that based on current information and a specific model, and walking through my steps for observers to understand, that the 1 in 6 statistic cannot be correct.**
It should also be noted that 1 in [whatever] statistics are displayed in that way to be more dramatic, which is a persuasive tactic. Far more women are concerned about rape if it's 1 in 6 rather than approx. 18%, even though they're the same amount.