"This appears to be the source of the 1 in 6 figure (17.6%). But it's worth going deeper. If you look at percentage of women reporting rape since age 18 (taking out the child abuse and statutory rape cases, which they also treat in detail), it becomes 1 in 10 (9.6%), and of those over 61.9% were at the hands of their intimate partner, as opposed to an acquaintance or stranger. Also in the survey, in the rapes that were reported via a randomized telephone survey, in 66.9% of those cases, the perpetrator did not threaten to harm or kill the victim. (Which makes it no less a crime, of course, but people may have images of rape which involves a other physical injuries, by a stranger, in some dark and deserted place. The statistics simply don't bear that out.)"

This seems to be implying that "child abuse and statutory rape" should not be counted as rape and that rape "at the hands of their intimate partner" or where "the perpetrator did not threaten to harm or kill the victim" are not "real" rape.

> This seems to be implying that [...] rape [...] where "the perpetrator did not threaten to harm or kill the victim" are not "real" rape.

This feels like a misreading, considering this section (which you quoted):

>> Which makes it no less a crime, of course, but people may have images of rape which involves a other physical injuries, by a stranger, in some dark and deserted place.

It's conversations like this that lead many people to be dubious of CoC. I'm not convinced that rape apology was happening here. "Kind Communications Guidelines" ask that you be charitable interpreting his mail and asks that he listen to your feedback. CoC leads to you trying to have him removed from the project, for an email that you may not have even understood correctly.

In some states, definitely in the past and perhaps even today though I haven't kept abreast of the law, there were different ages deemed legal for a relationship based on the genders involved. To defend the statistic is to, likely unknowingly, defend the discrimination the laws hold in both structure and application. I am not saying one should discount all cases covered under the law, but it does deserve some context given the sometimes sordid history of the laws.

I only pointed out what defending and using a certain statistic is discriminatory. I made no other arguments, and none directed toward the individual in question or their overall point. Now that you are aware of the discrimination that has historically been encoded into the laws in question, please allow the knowledge to soften the judgement of the behavior of calling that particular statistic into question, specifically when the behavior is saying it is something complex to be discussed and not totally dismissing the entirety of that statistic.