Comments

1
This is why you'll never see a Two Strikes and you're out law in this state.
2
Her utter obliviousness at the pain she caused paints her as a total psycho. I'm really hoping that letter was fake, and if not, I hope her current boyfriend dumps her. No one is hot enough to balance that kind of stuff out.
3
@ 2 Goddamit, if only that were true.
4
@3 ftw.
5
uh farts are not that far from rimming so its not like someone pins you down and farts on your face. its sort of part of the territory. if its an ass im ok to rim im ok with a little accident here or there. and an accident is not a big brown log. cheers
6
Any other guys have the irrational fear that one day you'll somehow piss off the wrong woman and she'll accuse you of rape and you end up in one of those guilty-by-accusation situations?
7
@ 6 - this is where not dating sociopaths comes in.
8
@ 7 Yeah, that's been my crucial mistake.
9
@7 - you don't have to date a women for her to falsely accuse you of rape.
10
Last I heard, all the military personnel lost their careers, most lost their families, and all will forever have the stigma of a rape accusation attached to the names.


Say what? They were conclusively proved innocent and they lost their career and families? Or is that due to their committing adultery and not the false rape accusation specifically? I call bullshit on the second letter.
11
You can get tossed out of the military for all sorts of consensual sex acts—including adultery.
12
"Boyfriend calls police, and police respond, take victim to a hospital for a rape kit, where she has vaginal and anal trauma consistent with her rape claim."

...Is it so hard to believe that just maybe she had been drunk/having a good time THEN, and got ambushed by the five guys afterwards? Talk about a lousy prosecutor. If you have vagina/anal trauma consistent with the rape claim, then it it more than like may be that she was actually raped like she said, but just because she wasn't dressed like a nun and meekly sitting in the corner, means she was lying? What utter bullshit.
13
@10: Not bullshit. I'm an attorney too, though not a prosecutor, and if my client had employees who were accused of rape-- even if not convicted-- I would tell that client to fire their asses.

It's about protecting yourself from legal liability. Suppose one of those non-convicted dudes is later accused of sexual harassment, or sex discrimination, by a recently laid-off employee. (BTW: These suits happen all the time.) Now suppose it comes out in trial that the dude was previously accused of rape. Can you imagine how quickly the jury would find for the plaintiff? Further suppose that it also comes out that my client knew about the rape accusation but kept the dude on staff anyway, in a position of power over women. Can you say "punitive damages"?

It's not fair, and it's not just, but employers need to cover their own asses.
14
@12: Let me translate that for you. "... police receive the surveillance tape from the security cameras inside the bar, which clearly show the woman very willingly pulling a train."

"Pulling a train" means "having sex with a bunch of guys one after the other". It's a sex act. The surveillance video showed her having consensual sex with a bunch of guys in a row. If you don't believe me, google "pulling a train".

Stop calling bullshit when you don't have a clue.
15
For a long time there was no such thing as rape because it was a woman's place to give herself. Now the pendulum has swung the opposite direction and women-all women, even batshit crazy women- have mighty power to ruin lives with just a few words. While I find the current state of affairs just as disgusting as the old, it seems inevitable that no change is possible because it will always boil down to he-said-she-said and what is worse? Rapists running around unfettered or batshit crazy women ruining people's lives?
16
Um prosecutor, why did you arrest these guys without watching the surveillance tape? Why did it take two days after arresting them for you to watch the tape? This is your fault. You should never have authorized arrests without looking at all the evidence first. Not to mention, filing a false police report is a crime too. If you had nailed the woman's ass to the wall, she would have a criminal record and lost *her* job.
17
So, we're expected to believe that a women went out, found five random guys in a bar, decided not only to have sex with them, but to do it right THERE, *and* to have repeat sessions of vaginal and anal (any guesses as to whether or not she kept copious amounts of lube in her purse?)...and then immediately reported rape?

Um...why?

I understand that false accusations happen, but...in a situation where there is not only no motive, but a sexual encounter that really doesn't sound like something any sane woman would seek out or enjoy...I have to cry bullshit.

This could be a completely fake letter. Alternately...we haven't seen the footage. What looks to one person like clear consent could look to another like a situation where a woman just isn't fighting back - and is even participating as instructed - because she doesn't want to deal with retaliatory violence from five men in addition to an inevitable rape.

@10 - The legal system does not prove people innocent. It only proves them "not guilty."
18
@17: Or she could have consented (probably drunkishly, which clouds the matter considerably) and then regretted it an hour or two later. Who knows.
19
@17:
Alternately...we haven't seen the footage. What looks to one person like clear consent could look to another like a situation where a woman just isn't fighting back - and is even participating as instructed - because she doesn't want to deal with retaliatory violence from five men in addition to an inevitable rape.

As long as it looks like clear consent to a few jurors, there will be an acquittal. Hell, even the jurors to whom it doesn't look like "clear" consent will probably have reasonable doubts as to whether the woman was raped. Again, I'm not a prosecutor, but I sure wouldn't move forward with that video evidence against my case.

As for a young woman never lying about being raped by five guys, well...
http://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/hof…

I think the key qualifier is "sane."
20
@17: "a sexual encounter that really doesn't sound like something any sane woman would seek out or enjoy..."

You haven't been reading this blog for long, have you? Where I live (a capital, but fairly small, city), there are two clubs I know of that exist just to give women this sort of encounter (and men the flip-side of it, obviously).
21
I agree with the letter writer here who's outraged at the false rape accusation, an act that's a thousand orders of magnitude worse than cheating on someone. But I have to argue with the idea that this "undermines the credibility of women who ARE raped." No, it doesn't have to. Rape is a very frequent crime, and the vast majority of reports aren't false. Women who make rape accusations already have their "credibility" questioned relentlessly because there are a lot of folks who like having the idea "women lie about rape" as an excuse to disbelieve them.

There are crazy asshole attention seekers who will make up stories about everything from robbery to carjacking to kidnapping to murder. (A 2001 Department of Justice report say rates of false report for rape are about the same as for other crimes: http://www.ojp.gov/ovc/publications/info…) And yet it seems like when an incident like this comes up, people are much more likely to start exclaiming, "see, THIS is why rape victims aren't believed!" No dude, that's not why. It's because asshole misogynists make a bunch of excuses about "she must have been asking for it" or "why did she get so drunk" or whatever.

Bottom line, if someone doubts rape victims' credibility, it's his or her fault and not that of some random crazy lady they read about on the internet.
22
@21: I sort of agree and sort of disagree. It's the fault of the misogynistic asshole who doesn't believe the genuine rape-victim; but the wolf-cryers give them both validation and 'proof' to offer for their attitude. If there were NO cases of false accusation, it would be a much more untenable position to disbelieve one particular rape claim.

Unfortunately, expecting there to be zero false accusations is an impossible standard to hold society to. Because there will always be some accusations which are false (even if it's a small proportion), you can't blame individual false accusers for the overall problem; even without their incident, misogynistic assholes would still have other anecdotes to offer up as 'proof' that women lie about this sort of thing.

I still believe, myself, that each woman (or man) who makes a false accusation of rape is doing their little bit towards undermining the credibility of real victims.
23
@21:
if someone doubts rape victims' credibility, it's his or her fault and not that of some random crazy lady they read about on the internet.

There's something upsetting about your viewpoint that I can't quite put my finger on. But let me try:

Yes, it's true that the majority of women would not make up rape charges. But it's also true that the majority of men would not rape anyone. So whenever there's a rape accusation, we're dealing with one or two out-of-the-ordinary people, and it's anyone's guess as to which is which. In other words, I don't automatically believe the accuser just because women do not generally make that shit up.

So here's where the borderline upsetting feeling comes in: It's almost like the people who automatically assume the accuser is telling the truth do not believe that most men do not rape. Their logic train seems to run "she accused him, she wouldn't lie, he would totally rape her because what man wouldn't, therefore he's guilty." The reasoning should be something like "she accused him, she wouldn't lie, he wouldn't rape her, I don't know who to believe without more evidence."

Automatically assuming the worst in men is just as bigoted as automatically assuming the worst in women.
24
@23 - I am guesssing that that coin is not even sided.
25
@24. Probably true. But one should still give both parties the benefit of the doubt.
26
@ 17,
Agreed. Consensual sexual behavior becomes rape when the woman changes her mind, before the intercourse or during it. And if she suffered vaginal and anal trauma consistent with her rape claim, what are the odds that she willingly suffered through it, without trying to stop the act? How many women actually enjoy their vaginae and ani being ripped? Yes you may be too intoxicated to stop it effectively, and it may not be detectable on security tapes, but last time I checked taking advantage of intoxicated people counted as rape. This kind of reminds me of the rape of Joan Holloway in Mad Men, which sparkled debate whether it was really rape - link here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6zZYCb-h…
27
If a woman I know and trust says she's been raped, I believe her without any hesitation.

If a woman I don't know says she's been raped, I wait for more evidence before forming the lynch mob. I don't think this makes me a misogynist or a bad person. It just makes me someone who doesn't trust strangers to always tell the truth.
28
@15: Ladies and Gentlemen, Rape Culture.
29
@23: I am one of the people who tends to trust the accuser (of whatever gender), and who has only very little benefit-of-the-doubt for the accused. I certainly don't think "all men would rape" is a concomitant of my attitude.

But here are some of my reasons for thinking the way I do:

1) I think my culture is a rape culture
2) I think that, because of (1), even victims of genuine rapes are reluctant to describe their encounters as "rapes" unless they're really, really sure. (Anecdotally -- I know a number of rape victims of whom this is true.)
3) I think that, because of (1), even well-meaning and ordinarily decent people commit rapes. (Anecdote: A kind and thoughtful person I know nearly raped his friend, X, a few months ago. We recently learned that he had no idea X was much too drunk to consent to the sex he was pressuring her to have. He was completely sober at the time.)
4) Although the people who commit rapes are a tiny minority of the population, most of them are repeat rapists. Evidence: http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/200…

This is why I am inclined to believe those who describe themselves as victims/survivors of rape, even though I believe most men (and other accused parties) would be appalled at the thought of raping someone... especially under *that* description.
30
The percentage of people who give false accounts of rape come out to the same percentage of people who give false reports of almost all other crimes. Yet does that tiny percentage of people undermine "real" victim? Or do we have a justice system for a fucking reason that takes all reports seriously and investigates all crimes to find the truth?
31
@26: The problem is that the weight of independent evidence (ie not the assertions of the alleged victim or perpetrators) tended to suggest that the woman in this anecdote had changed her mind AFTER the intercourse. If the weight of independent evidence suggests that no crime was committed, the chance of proving the alleged perpetrators' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is vanishingly small.

As for the medical evidence, please don't try to pretend there aren't people out there into rough (and even injurious) sex. While I'm sure there aren't too many women specifically into having those sorts of injuries inflicted, there are plenty into the sorts of play that might cause those sorts of injuries incidentally. The fact that the medical report said that the injuries were consistent with rape doesn't mean they weren't also consistent with a variety of consensual scenarios.

To harp on, I was recently injured in a martial arts accident. I was slow in blocking a kick, and my sparring partner was slow in pulling it, and I ended up with a cracked rib.The injury is consistent with a fake story I could come up with about a stranger attacking me by kicking me in the ribs. But the same injury is also consistent with what actually happened, and probably with a long list of other scenarios I could come up with.
32
@29: But you've just listed further evidence for "most women don't make up rape charges." You haven't overcome the mental stumbling block of "most men do not rape"; indeed, the fact that most rapists are repeat rapists means that even fewer men rape.

Of course, I don't automatically assume she's lying either, any more than I assume he's lying. But here are some of the things that go through my mind:

1) Did he even have sex with her? Mistaken identification in "stranger rape" cases is not that uncommon, particularly when cross-racial identification is involved. Oh yes, my culture is also a racist culture, and there are particular intersections between rape and race that one should always keep in mind.

2) Were they both drunk, and if so, how drunk? Yes, if the victim is too drunk to give consent, that's rape, but most people seem to forget that the accused may have also been too drunk to consent to sex. (Again, here's the specter of "men always rape / consent to sex.") Or did two drunk people rape each other?

3) Did she convey her refusal (assuming she wasn't incapacitated)? Most rape laws require both the lack of consent and force or the threat of force. Did he actually use force or the threat of force? I understand that many feminists seem to think lack of consent is (or should be) the only issue, so I present the following hypothetical: Suppose an unrelated third party threatens a woman's life unless she has sex with her unknowing blind date. The woman and the blind date have sex, despite the blind date taking every effort to ensure that she consented. The woman didn't consent, but pretended she did out of fear for her life. Is the blind date a rapist?

In other words, even if the victim is convinced that she was raped and thus not (at least knowingly) lying, there is still the possibility that the accused is innocent. Which is why I give the accused the benefit of the doubt.
33
@23 "Automatically assuming the worst in men is just as bigoted as automatically assuming the worst in women."

Oh, that makes me feel so much better! All the times I was sexually assaulted, am continually sexually harassed, and the friends who have been raped by men doesn't mean ALL men are bad. How bigoted we are to go to serious lengths to protect ourselves from them! For hating the rape culture perpetuated by them! We're just equal sides of a coin - a coin where millions of women are raped and killed every day by men for simply being women.
34
I'm surprised there aren't more people screaming their head off here. Because if you go to most feminist blogs, the folks there make it clear they believe that 100% of rape accusations are true, and no women anywhere would ever ever EVER be inclined to use the justice system for personal gain. They justify this with lines about "rape culture" (as above) and saying "Well, rape is underreported! And underprosecuted!" - which, whatever truth may lie in it, does nothing whatsoever to nullify the existence of some women out there who really are that sociopathic/insane.

It's as if they're terrified that merely acknowledging a false rape accusation occurred _somewhere_ will somehow cause them to lose some point in an imaginary game, which they'll then lose, and rape will forever be legal. Or something.
35
@ Duckrabbit. I think I love you. Thank fuck I'm not the only one who sees this!
36
@33 - "How bigoted we are to go to serious lengths to protect ourselves from them"

You're being disingenuous, kersy. "Going to serious lengths" to protect people from rapists doesn't have to extend to jumping to assumptions of guilt and calling up a lynch mob every time someone is accused of it. That's the whole point here.
37
When a woman makes an accusation of rape, and the alleged rape is proven to never have taken place, she should receive whatever sentence a rapist would. Rape is a horrible crime. Falsely accusing someone of it is no less horrible.
38
@29

THIS. Exactly this.
39
@ 32 "You haven't overcome the mental stumbling block of "most men do not rape"; indeed, the fact that most rapists are repeat rapists means that even fewer men rape."

WOW! "Mental stumbling block." Mansplainin', everbody! I smell an MRA! Perhaps a Nice Guy TM.

To speak to your simplistic logic: get over the "mental stumbling block" that most women do not lie about being raped. There. Argument settled.

Sheesh. I'd post some links for your perusal, but I'm tired of asshats who speak to issues they know nothing about like they're an authority on it. Especially when that asshat is a misogynist. And I have a feeling that you didn't read the yesmeansyes blog post Duckrabbit posted upthread.

FFS.
40
@36 which lynch mob? The one that slut shames and victim blames? The one that calls victims whores and asks what she was wearing and who she'd had (consensual) sex with and what she was drinking? The one that only puts 6% of rapists in jail? And intimidates victims to such a point that 60% of assaults don't get reported? That one?

No, not every man is a rapist, but when 1 in 6 women is sexually assaulted in their lifetime it's not an zero sum game.
41
@33:
Oh, that makes me feel so much better! All the times I was sexually assaulted, am continually sexually harassed, and the friends who have been raped by men doesn't mean ALL men are bad. How bigoted we are to go to serious lengths to protect ourselves from them! For hating the rape culture perpetuated by them! We're just equal sides of a coin - a coin where millions of women are raped and killed every day by men for simply being women.

Who is "them"? The small percentage of men who rape? Or all men? Careful, your bias is showing.

@39:
To speak to your simplistic logic: get over the "mental stumbling block" that most women do not lie about being raped. There. Argument settled.

For Christ's sake, did you even read the rest of the post? Or understand the point I'm making? I'm beginning to suspect that you (though not other posters) fall into the "all men would totally rape" camp.
42
I want to call timeout. I think some of us lost the plot ten or so posts back. We need a ref in to sort out who's just bashing their keyboard and pasting over the parts which happen to spell out English words.

Contrariwise, there are some good points in there too.
43
kersy@40, thanks for serving as a perfect example of what I said in @34.
44
All that said, I have to admit that since there are probably more rapists than false rape victims (as @24 pointed out), I am somewhat more predisposed to believe the accuser than the accused. But I don't automatically believe the accuser. I have my reasonable doubts. And so too do the overwhelming majority of jurors, which is why prosecutors rely on DNA evidence, rape kit results, witness statements, etc. when trying a rape case.

If we blindly accept the accuser's word as truth, rape trials would consist of ten seconds of testimony-- "He raped me!"-- followed by a conviction. I sincerely hope that even the most pro-rape-survivor advocate does not want that.
45
@19 - I'm arguing against the idea that there's any conclusive proof of that this woman made the story up, not against the established system of burdens of proof for defendants. There are a lot of rape cases where, if I were a jury member, I would probably vote "not guilty" even though I might think that rape is more likely than not. "Proven beyond a reasonable doubt" is stronger than "probably."

A lot of the misunderstandings about some imaginary epidemic of false rape accusations seem to stem, in my experience, from people not understanding that a verdict of "not guilty" is ABSOLUTELY NOT the same as a verdict of "innocent," or proof positive that the accuser is lying.

And yes, "sane" is the operative word. Generally speaking, though, if there's no motive and no history of mental disturbance...meh?

@20 - I've been reading this blog for years, but there's a big, big difference between the *fantasy* of an encounter like that (or recreating it in controlled settings) and doing it in exactly those kinds of conditions on the spur of the moment.
46
@41 What bias? Against men? I work with all men. My loving boyfriend who is sitting next to me is a man. My brothers and my father and most of my friends are men. I'm not biased against men. But I cannot tell the difference between who is going to attack me verbally or physically or emotionally. The odds are too stacked against me and my experiences have taught me over and over again to protect and defend myself against men, as they are the ones who have and probably will hurt me.
Telling me that few men rape does nothing to change the fact that women are raped every day in huge numbers or knowing that privilege is the only reason I'm not sexually harassed on a regular basis. It does not inspire me to put my guard down or have less fear.

Let me repeat: THERE IS NO WAY FOR ME TO DETERMINE WHETHER A MAN IS GOING TO SEXUALLY ASSAULT ME OR NOT. I can only depend on my experiences and the experiences of other people. Being aware and careful around men does not mean I prejudge them as all rapists, it means I'm rightfully careful. If I don't walk down dark alleys or hold my keys in a defense position or watch my drink at a bar or avoid groups of shady characters or don't talk to strangers, does that make me bigoted towards men? Or am I being aware of real situations and people that put me at risk?

This is the exact same reason we have to take accusations of rape very seriously. The cards are not stacked against men, they are stacked against women.

@34 There are psycho women out in the world just as there are psycho men. They are tiny and insignificant and bear no weight on the terrible amount of people who are raped every day all over the world and how few of them are charged.
47
@ I hate Screen Names, especially in post #32,

I think that a lot of our disagreement comes from the fact that you're imagining the assumptions of guilt or innocence to be occurring in the mind of a judge or juror in a trial. I'm imagining them to occur in the mind of a confidante. The difference showed up particularly strongly in your post #44.

You wrote @29: "But you've just listed further evidence for 'most women don't make up rape charges.' You haven't overcome the mental stumbling block of 'most men do not rape'; indeed, the fact that most rapists are repeat rapists means that even fewer men rape."

To spell it out more fully, in gender-neutral terms: if a small number of rapists commit a lot of rapes, then we don't have to believe that *most* men or *most* people are rapists to believe that someone who reports encountering one is very likely to be telling the truth. This claim is STRENGTHENED, not WEAKENED, by the possibility that some individuals are repeat-rapists.

Suppose we have a population of 100 people. If thirty of them report having been kicked in the shin, we don't have to think there are thirty shin-kickers, much less that most that most people (or most men) are shin-kickers. We might think there's just one, or just a few, who kick LOTS of people in the shins.

(Does this remind you of the LSAT or is just me?)
48
@27 - Do you apply the same standard to people who claim they've been mugged or car jacked?
49
And, OK, I can't resist one last remark. I AM one of those feminists who think that consent is the issue with rape. Your scenario in @29 did not undermine my belief in that -- it only made me think that the third party is the offender and that the sex crime you describe is not exactly "rape." I would still describe her as the victim of a sex crime. And a woman in that situation would not have accused her "blind date" of raping her, when he'd clearly made every effort to ensure that she had consented. Using that scenario to investigate this question is much too far-fetched to be helpful.

Luckily, I live in Massachusetts, the state with the most yes-means-yes compatible rape laws in America.
50
@47 - Exactly. Maybe only one of out 100 men would ever be a rapist, maybe less, but how often do we encounter 100 men? He's there, he's waiting for you to let your guard down, and you don't EVER know which one he is. It's like Russian Roulette.
51
@45: I get your point, you think no sane woman would actually do that sort of thing: that is, let guys line up and take their turn at her. Not outside fantasies; or at least, if they did do it, they'd be safe and responsible about it, like Dan would advise, and tell a friend and have someone standing by doing condom checks on the guys and all that sort of thing. People do some pretty stupid things sometimes, though. In this case, we just don't have the information to know.

Maybe she'd been trying for years to get up the courage to do this one crazy thing she's always wanted to try; this one night, the chance came up, and she was just the right amount of tipsy (and so were the guys), and she went for it and regretted it later, and felt so bad that rather than admit that the reality didn't nearly live up to the fantasy, she'd blame the guys involved instead.

Then again, maybe she was raped (or she was too drunk to consent: is there a standard for that? like 0.08?) I'm just saying that people aren't always safe about how they try out their fantasies.
52
... by "maybe she was raped (or she was too drunk to consent", I meant "maybe she was forcibly raped" and "too drunk to consent and raped".

I don't mean for a second that "too drunk to consent" is somehow not rape.
53
As someone who was falsely accused of violence by a woman after breaking off a relationship with her I have to concur that these kinds of accusations mark someone as a bad person. She told our mutual friends and my work a whole variety of stories including that I had tried to run her over with a car, and that I was hitting her. Thank god she couldn't keep the stuff straight and in the end most people including enough at work to cause me to keep my job didn't believe her but I know for a fact that it severely damaged my relationships with many friends. The really messed up thing, she still emails me to this day wanting to apologize and make nice, but there is no forgiving something as horrible as that. The experience has made me a lot less likely to believe other women when they make similar accusations, and if I was on a jury the standard of proof would be way higher now than it was before this happened to me.
54
@46: I was referring to assuming that the accused rapist must be guilty, i.e. "that all men would totally rape." I don't see a problem with taking reasonable precautions against rape or any other crime, although keep in mind that some precautions go beyond "reasonable." I am a large brown man, and I've lost jobs because white female supervisors just didn't "feel safe" working around me. I can't help but wonder whether they would have felt safer were I smaller, whiter, or female. As I said, rape culture and racism intersect in unpleasant ways, and women are not the only ones negatively impacted.

@47: Yes, I am thinking of a trial, but I don't see why we should rush to judgment outside of trial either.

@49: That scenario is just the beginning, though. The point is that the accused must have some knowledge of her lack of consent in order to be a criminal, and that point is lost when one focuses only on her consent. For instance, if she has some kind of mental imbalance and he doesn't know it, there's no rape-- or more precisely, he's not a rapist. If they're both drunk and he's too drunk to realize how drunk she is, there's no rape. And by the same token, she didn't rape him either.

Where this hits closer to home is the "look in his eyes" cases-- where the accuser never communicates a "no" or tries to stop him in any way, where he never uses force or the threat of force, but she agrees to sex because of a "look in his eyes." Under those facts he may be careless or stupid, but he's not a rapist. IMO they are both at fault for the non-consensual sex-- she for not communicating and he for not requesting communication-- and I'm not going to send a guy to jail for years based on that.

Put more simply, that a woman experienced an encounter as rape does not automatically mean that the man was a rapist. Some feminists seem to ignore the "male" (or accused) part of that equation.
55
@54 The man in your blind date scenario would never have been accused. That was my point.
56
I remember a few things from previous posts, that it's never a good idea when alcohol is involved, and inviting a man into your home, or going into his, is the exact same thing as spreading your legs to him.

Lol ya rape culture, you win.
57
Hey Kersy. As a man, THERE IS NO WAY FOR ME TO DETERMINE WHETHER A MAN IS GOING TO ASSAULT ME OR NOT. I can no more protect myself against somebody who seriously intends to harm me than anybody else can. If you are worried about random strangers on the street, then you need serious therapy do deal with your unresolved trauma.

You need to stop lying and claiming that you're not biased against men. You've outright stated in the past that the opinion of any man on issues surrounding women is worth less than that of any woman's, no matter how uneducated or unintelligent that opinion might be.
58
@57: While I think Kersy is over-reactionist, probably biased, and could be much happier if she could learn to be a little more trusting, I'm going to suggest that you're DEFINITELY over-reactionist, certainly biased, and probably a jerk.

There's a big difference between assault and rape. I've been assaulted more than once myself. One time was in my own home. One time was at high-school, in front of a bunch of people. None of them affected me in the way rape affects someone. It's a completely different scale, and it's demeaning to rape victims (or potential rape victims) to compare their experiences and reactions to those of assault victims.

Some of your points might have merit. None of them are any of your business (Kersy has a perfect right to be insecure and over-reactionist). If you disagree with her, refute her points. Don't go all ad hominem on her.
59
Yes, I'm a jerk online to people who tell me that my opinion is utterly worthless because of my gender. So what? I don't have any respect for the sexist.
60
Tear down ideas, not people. When you tear down people, you alienate them, and particularly in this case, make the problem worse. You have a right to be a jerk, and I have a right to call you on it!

Sticks and stones and all, bro.
61
@51 - True enough. I just think there are probably more instances of women getting raped by multiple men then there are women going out and having consensual sex with five strange men under insane circumstances. But I wouldn't convict a guy based on that hunch, like I said earlier.
62
"Under those facts he may be careless or stupid, but he's not a rapist. IMO they are both at fault for the non-consensual sex-- she for not communicating and he for not requesting communication-- and I'm not going to send a guy to jail for years based on that."

So why shouldn't we have a higher standard for men than that? Why is clear, enthusiastic consent such a difficult concept?
63
"How many women actually enjoy their vaginae and ani being ripped?"

I'm not sure, but I don't believe "trauma" equals "injury" in forensic terms. Any time you get fucked, there is some minute bruising and such. It's an odd use of terminology, but there you go.
64
Please remember folks false accusations go both ways. Rape victims who come forward and do not get justice have almost always been falsely accused of making false rape accusations. Some become part of all the collective anecdotes of all those women out there who make false accusations. And to the guys... if you don't want to be falsely accused of rape don't do stupid shit like participate in gang bangs with wasted women, stop going for crazy girl friends because you find them exciting and don’t ever try to get a girl in bed by lying then turning around and treating her like shit….especially if she’s crazy. It is wrong that crime victims have their credibility questioned for the benefit of stupid guys who pursue nookie like its some constitutional right, fail to take responsibility for themselves and wind up in trouble. And no, I am not saying all guys who are falsely accused are irresponsible but that certainly does apply to some.
65
So why shouldn't we have a higher standard for men than that? Why is clear, enthusiastic consent such a difficult concept?

Why shouldn't we have a higher standard for women? Why is clearly saying "no" such a difficult concept? And does she have an equal obligation to obtain his clear, enthusiastic consent? Or are we back in "all men would totally rape / consent" land?

Placing all of the onus on the male only makes sense if women are fragile, delicate flowers that can't stand up for themselves. That does not comport with my notions of gender equality.
66
" I just think there are probably more instances of women getting raped by multiple men then there are women going out and having consensual sex with five strange men under insane circumstances."

Doubt it, as there are sex clubs and swingers parties where such things are organized. So sex with multiple men is an organized hobby for some small slice of our population. By contrast, a gang rape is something that will, in many cases result in a very severe police response against the criminal parties, who will often be known to the victim and hence easily identified.

Tell me, are you dressed for church when you state such unsupported beliefs?
67
@65 I think Laurel was merely following YOUR lead in assuming that the potential rapist here is male. ALL people should have sex ONLY with people who clearly, enthusiastically consent.
68
@67: So you would impose an obligation on everyone to obtain clear, enthusiastic consent, and be willing to send people who don't to jail?

OK, then here's a real situation for you: Several years ago, I'm sleeping in the bed of a women I'd recently met, with whom there was mutually consenting, enthusiastic sex earlier that night. Around 2 or 3 am, she starts nudging me for round 2. I tell her that I'm tired and try to wave her off, but she keeps bothering me. Eventually I let her climb on top of me and have lackluster sex, just so I could go back to sleep again.

I arguably consented, but that consent wasn't clear or enthusiastic. If you had asked me whether I would rather have sex or keep sleeping, I would have gone for sleep. Was I raped? Was she a rapist? Should she go to jail for several years?

IMO, I was not raped even though I didn't clearly, enthusiastically consent. I could have stopped the sex any time I wanted; I just chose not to out of convenience. She may have been pushy and rude, but she wasn't a rapist.

Agree? Does your opinion change if the sexes are reversed?
69
@48 I don't use the same standard for people who have been mugged or carjacked because those aren't the sorts of crimes that boil down to one person's word against someone else's.

We apparently live in different worlds, but I see people falsely accuse other people of all kinds of things (not just rape) all the time. And false accusations of rape happen much more often than a lot of people like to think. In addition to incidents involving people I know, in a city I used to live in, a woman from a university women's organization put posters up all over town with a picture of her ex-boyfriend with the word RAPIST in big letters. The guy was assaulted several times before the woman came forward and apologized to her friends at the campus group for using their resources to make this false accusation. The story I got from some of her former friends was that he had broken up with her immediately after they'd had sex, and so she retroactively decided he had raped her because she wouldn't have given consent if she knew they were going to break up. That's certainly sleazy, assholish behaviour, but it's not rape. Meanwhile, the guy ended up moving across the country because your reputation can't survive being publicly branded a rapist like that.

That's obviously an extreme case, but I've seen similar things happening to lesser degrees many times. If anyone I don't know well enough to guess at their sanity level is making public accusations of rape against someone instead of just, you know, calling the police, I think that I'm justified in waiting until the facts are in before I back up one side or the other.

@67 I would interpret "clear, enthusiastic consent" as getting naked with someone and then screwing. If you're conscious and not being coerced, the onus is on you to put a stop to things if you need to. If having sex with someone you're not particularly into is being raped, I must be repressing massive amounts of trauma because I've been raped dozens of times over the past 10 years or so.
70
A lot of people keep talking about how nowadays women are automatically believed when they make accusations and that they man is presumed to be guilty until proven innocent. Honestly, I have to wonder how many instances of reported rape that these individuals have actually encountered in real life. My best friend in high school was raped, and I worked with two different domestic violence shelters, one for over two years. Despite what many people claim, there was NOT the automatic assumption that the women were telling the truth. In the case of my best friend, the police out and out told her that her rapist (also a family member of her's) would NEVER have raped anyone, that the sex had to have been consensual, and they then demanded to know what was "wrong" that made her report this now (the implications were that she had an STD or something).

Now, I'm absolutely not stating that men aren't falsely accused of rape, and I am well aware that sometimes the accuser (the supposed rape victim) is believed when in fact she is lying. However, it just isn't true that somehow our culture has switched from never believing a rape accusation to always believing a rape accusation.
71
Take this for whatever it is worth. I had a buddy who worked in the sex crimes area as a very large city assistant prosecutor. Good guy who had no issues with women that I ever saw.

He said the number of absolutely certain false claims was surprising.

He said that he had seen too many cases where a sobbing, hysterical woman says ex-boyfriend broke into her house, raped her last friday night, beat her, and then raped her five more times before leaving at 5 am, kicking kittens on the way out. Etc.

In sum, when the women reported false claims, there were lots of detail and much emotion over the horrific crime committed. Later, however, the stunned, shaken ex-boyfriend could provide irrefutable evidence that he was in Los Angeles that day during that time, obviously ending the investigation and showing the woman is lying. According to him, the instances of such attempts at revenge via rape accusations was both surprising and a hidden thing: the prosecutors' office "true believers" in that rape culture bullshit wanted it hidden away, lest people at large find out about such behavior by accusers.

Hence the women were not prosecuted for filing a false claim.
72
No Data @ 71, you are a guy, correct? Did your friend ever tell you about all the women who wouldn't press charges, or the victims who obviously were raped never got justice, or did he just tell you about all the false claims?

Sometimes women withdraw their consent at an akward time - I have. I was 'assaulted' by a nice guy whom I was engaged. I had agreed to go to bed with him. I admit he had full concent up to that point. Then he insisted on having anal sex. I reminded him that I had consented to vaginal sex and didn't want to have anal sex as I found it painful. He insisted. I resisted and attempted to get out of bed. He tackled me to the floor. I tried to squirm away and get to my feet; I managed to get to my knees. He tackled me again and I went sprawling into a dresser, cutting open my scalp [I later discovered that I had also been concussed]. He finally stopped and apologized.

I asked him why he had continued to try to have sex with me after I had said 'no'. He replied that he hadn't realized I had meant it. [!] I asked him how I could have possibly made it any clearer to him - he had no answer to that.

After hearing my story do you think that I was nearly raped? If I had gone to the police do you think they would have done anything? After all, I had initially given my consent - just not to that. Yes, he hit me and I had bruises, needed stitches in my scalp and had a concussion - but would the police have helped me or just made the situation worse? I hadn't hit him, my only goal was to escape - wouldn't the police have questioned why I didn't 'fight back'?

How about the time in high school when a guy slipped a roofie into my drink at a party and then 'took advantage of me'. Was that rape? I didn't consent - but I figured it was worthless to try to go to the police. What proof was there other than my word? It was your classic he-said-she-said scenario - I had no proof, barely any memory of the act... and all I lost [from my attacker's point of view] was my virginity.

Yes, women sometimes lie about being raped. But I think a lot more women are too intimidated by the leagl system to even charge a lot of raped. I think that most women feel they just ton't have the evidence needed and that the process will just humilate them further. But as a man, I don't expect you to understand just how vulnerable a woman feels when it comes to sexual violence.
73
#66 - Sex clubs and swingers parties are not what I'd call "insane circumstances." Those sound like pretty SANE setups for fantasy realization to me.

#67 - Yup, sounds good to me. I've never once had sex where I'm not saying, "yes, yes, do it!" or some variation thereof.

" I would interpret "clear, enthusiastic consent" as getting naked with someone and then screwing. If you're conscious and not being coerced, the onus is on you to put a stop to things if you need to."

That's a pretty vague interpretation. "Screwing" happening is hardly an indicator of consent, and "getting naked" involves...what? Taking off your own clothes? Letting someone else take them off?

As far as coercion goes...yeah, that's important, but as someone pointed out above, there are incidents where a woman may feel that she's being coerced but the man had no intention of being coercive. Still...even if it's not actually coercive, is it REALLY that hard to know the difference between a woman who really wants it and a woman who doesn't? Are there really that many guys out there for whom unenthused, just-barely-tolerating-it partners are so much the norm that they don't think, "hey, something's wrong," when she's lying there with an uncomfortable look on her face and not participating? I don't want to send these idiots to jail, but sometimes it's really hard to muster up an overwhelming amount of sympathy for them.

"...it just isn't true that somehow our culture has switched from never believing a rape accusation to always believing a rape accusation."

If it was, we wouldn't be able to have this conversation. And I've had this conversation hundreds of times. There's no shortage of people willing to point out that a woman might be lying, and usually also no shortage of people who are convinced that at least half of all rape accusations are false.
74
I used to be very trusting, and once allowed a guy I did not know well to sleep over at my house, so he would not have to drive home drunk. I woke up, and he was inside me.

One time, about 10 years later, I got really drunk with my roomates at home. One of my roomates had invited his friend over for the party. We were the last people standing at the end of the night. I remember drinking with him after the roomies went to sleep. I must have blacked out, and when I came to, he was inside me.

I bet neither of these men believe they are rapists. Their friends would probably also not call them rapists. But, the reality is, they took advantage of me when I was 1) asleep, and 2) really, really drunk. I take some responsibility for both, and I did not bother to report it, because I knew I would not win EITHER battle. I do believe that many men, a good percentage, feel that when a woman is compromised, they can take advantage. And, that is also rape.

BTW...if she did consent to a train in an open bar, she either was completely wasted or unstable mentally. Either way, not ok. I'm glad those men lost their families...what woman wants to be married to a man who participated in a gang bang?!?
75
I used to be very trusting, and once allowed a guy I did not know well to sleep over at my house, so he would not have to drive home drunk. I woke up, and he was inside me.

One time, about 10 years later, I got really drunk with my roomates at home. One of my roomates had invited his friend over for the party. We were the last people standing at the end of the night. I remember drinking with him after the roomies went to sleep. I must have blacked out, and when I came to, he was inside me.

I bet neither of these men believe they are rapists. Their friends would probably also not call them rapists. But, the reality is, they took advantage of me when I was 1) asleep, and 2) really, really drunk. I take some responsibility for both, and I did not bother to report it, because I knew I would not win EITHER battle. I do believe that many men, a good percentage, feel that when a woman is compromised, they can take advantage. And, that is also rape.

BTW...if she did consent to a train in an open bar, she either was completely wasted or unstable mentally. Either way, not ok. I'm glad those men lost their families...what woman wants to be married to a man who participated in a gang bang?!?
76
It's hard for guys to know whether their friends are drunk-rapists, too.

Many years ago, my friends and I attended a party from which it was literally impossible to drive away at night (it was on an island). Since we were all sleeping there anyway, many of us got completely wasted. A girl we had just met that day had gone waaaay past "flirty drunk" and well into "really drunk": she couldn't stand up, was slurring her words, her eyes were glazed, etc. One of my friends kept touching her, leaning on her, etc. He would not. leave. her. the. fuck. alone. And he was not that drunk. It didn't take a genius to see where that was going.

Fortunately, both her friend and I weren't that drunk either. We pulled them into separate buildings: her friend took care of her, while I physically restrained my "friend" when he tried to go after her. After the party, I completely cut that guy out of my life.

But here's the thing: prior to that night, I would have never thought that my ex-friend could be a drunk-rapist. He seemed like a normal, harmless geeky guy; he had even dated one of my friends in the past, and she didn't have anything bad to say about him. Had her friend and I been more wasted, and had my ex-friend followed through with his obvious intentions, I would not have believed the girl-I-didn't-know when she accused my "harmless friend" of rape. It was a scary wake-up call.

So. I don't automatically believe anyone when it comes to rape charges, regardless of who makes them, regardless of who is accused, though I would never be so gauche as to voice my doubts to their face. That seems to be an area where you can't trust what you know of the person.
77
Interestingly, a number of the problems here boil down to personal experience: it would seem most people's positions on this thread reflect their personal experiences. Those who were the victims / knew people who were the victims of rapists tend to want to believe the accusers; those who were victims / knew people who were victims of false rape accusations tend to want to believe the accused.

Meanwhile, we wonder (a) what the real numbers are, and (b) what we should conclude from them once we know them.

On (a): it seems false rape accusations go way beyond other false crime accusations, despite the DOJ report that someone linked to, because: (i) it's not actually necessary to press criminal charges: just ruining the guy's reputation will do fine (cf. the letters by the attorney who said he'd advise his client to fire any employees who were suspected of rape, regardless of legal status, and why); (ii) only those cases in which overwhelming evidence contradicts the accuser's claims actually get classified as false rape accusations; often the presence of circumstancial evidence is sufficient to make the case believable, so one may suspect that the number of actual convictions that were based on false claims is higher than for other crimes.

On (b): whatever the numbers are, a lot of our perceptions are already colored by beliefs ("I believe my culture is a rape culture" vs. "I believe women have completely reversed the situation and now can get virtually any man convicted", etc.) that, like all sociological claims, are very difficult to prove (cf. philosophy of sociology and human sciences), and disregard the fact that we experience life as individuals, not as "categories".

A difficult topic indeed. I hope participants will at least admit that all viewpoints have sincere, well-meaning defenders who are not trying to advance any given group's power agenda ("I think I smell an MRA!" vs. "Feminists again!")...
78
I don't understand why the military guys lost their careers. Didn't the video prove that they were heterosexual? Isn't that the whole point?

Granted, if married, this probably also qualifies as adultery [and I can understand why their wives would dump them], and even if they're single, maybe it's "indecent acts" or something.

But it would be helpful to understand why the military [which service, where and when?] did this to them, when it was clearly based on a vindictive crazy person.
79
@77 (I Hate Screen Names), I'd be curious about the motivations of your normal, somewhat geeky ex-friend. I have this nagging impression that 'normal people' and 'criminals' aren't really worlds apart, i.e. criminals are simply evil people possessed by Satan, etc. I completely agree that what he did was inacceptable, and good for you and your friends that you separated him from the drunk girl. Still... he's not that different from other guys, I think, or from other girls for that matter. And understanding his motivations would help us get down to the crux of the point: the underlying causes of this kind of behavior.

Humans of all genders are complicated things, and they don't get any simpler or easier after you get to know them.
80
I am female and I can certainly stand as a counter-example to the "what woman wants to be married to a guy who participated in a gang-bang?" assumption that gang bangs are odious. I absolutely have gang-bang fantasies. And I would not consider a man who participated in an all-around consenting gang-bang to be anything but kinky. From my perspective, "trauma" to tissue "consistent with rape" does not imply that it is inconsistent with a good hard (consensual) fuck.

I mention this not to excuse rapists--there can be no excuse--but to emphasize as others have, that determining whether a rape has occurred, even with "objective" evidence is very difficult for a third party.
81
I am female and I can certainly stand as a counter-example to the "what woman wants to be married to a guy who participated in a gang-bang?" assumption that gang bangs are odious. I absolutely have gang-bang fantasies. And I would not consider a man who participated in an all-around consenting gang-bang to be anything but kinky. From my perspective, "trauma" to tissue "consistent with rape" does not imply that it is inconsistent with a good hard (consensual) fuck.

I mention this not to excuse rapists--there can be no excuse--but to emphasize as others have, that determining whether a rape has occurred, even with "objective" evidence is very difficult for a third party.
82
@68, I would say that you grudgingly consented. But you did consent, and the way you describe the situation shows that you know that. Which means that (1) morally, you should not accuse her of rape. You should not initiate a case against her. And (2) within the legal system, assuming you didn't commit perjury, it would be clear that you consented to sex. Consent doesn't mean you definitely prefer it to other activities. It means that you did it voluntarily, and you did.

@69. You wrote "I would interpret 'clear, enthusiastic consent' as getting naked with someone and then screwing." I, on the other hand, would interpret it as getting naked with someone and then screwing VOLUNTARILY. That's the rub, innit?
Having sex with someone you're not particularly into is not being raped. Having sex WITHOUT ONE'S CONSENT is being raped.

@72 & @74 Thank you for sharing those experiences with us. I'm so sorry that you were treated that way.
And @76 -- also a very revealing experience. Thanks for telling us about it.
83
I've seen such cases for far too long a time. I've come to the conclusion over almost two decades in the law that (a) the number of actual rape cases is vastly, vastly under-reported (many of the women that I've known well in the past have some sexual assault of some kind made in the past), and (b) the number of false accusations is under-reported, but to a lesser degree relative to unreported assaults.

One astute commenter (ankylosaur at 77) above noted "it's not actually necessary to press criminal charges: just ruining the guy's reputation will do fine", and that seems to be exactly the rub in the false accusation cases that I've seen in my practice or those of my colleagues. (Well, that and "mean as a snake" accuser.) The 3 that spring immediately to mind are: 1- angry female offender laying accusation on male offender bf because he'd been able to escape from custody, but left her; 2 - woman accusing co-worker (motive unconfirmed but conjectured on the data to be to cover up her affair with a supervisor which would cost them both their long careers and pensions); and 3 - family member of man involved in custody and access dispute brings charge against man's ex-wife's new bf.

1 – Woman changed story, no charges laid.
2 - Honourable acquittal. Amongst other things, jury saw right through the accusation -- she made the mistake of trying to be Master Thespian to sway the jury -- and there was zero evidence otherwise.
3 - The luck of the Irish. At the exact moment -- I mean exact, almost right down to the time -- that the accuser swore up and down that the accused was raping her he was having a drunk argument with a police officer about an hour's drive away.

Those are three incidents in a 20 year career, though. Way higher than some rape advocates will admit to, but small beer indeed compared to the number of unreported cases. I just feel uncomfortable with the notion that I have to accept “rape victims are treated like dirt, and there are way more rapes than are reported” as a package deal with “there are few to none false accusations”.
84
@77 You wrote that we need to resolve
(a) what the real numbers are, and
(b) what we should conclude from them once we know them.

I disagree with what you had to say about those (and I'll get to that in a moment), but first I'd like to strongly agree with the last point you made. YES: people come to both sides of this issue with a lot of earnestness. I think that whether that earnestness translates into clear and careful thought is another matter, and I agree with you that more attention to the research (as opposed to anecdotes and speculation) would be a big help.

I just think you'd do well to follow your own advice. My own familiarity with sociological and philosophical work on rape is what leads me to challenge your speculations about its likely results:

On (a):
Your argument (i) that more false accusations than true ones are made does not hold water. You're saying we should put more tallies in the "false accusations" column because so many false accusations are made outside of the legal system. But you neglect the possibility -- and the overwhelming empirical evidence -- that the vast majority of true accusations are also made outside the legal system. There's no reason at all to believe that false accusations outnumber true ones in that domain.
Your insinuation (ii) that defendants in rape cases are treated as guilty unless proven innocent also reveals your ignorance of the vast tomes of empirical legal/sociological research on the topic.

As for (b): People who've devoted their lives to the study of sociology and philosophy -- myself included -- would disagree with your dim view of the search for truth in our fields.
85
typo, missing phrase:
"but small beer indeed compared to the number of unreported sexual assault cases".
86
I think it would behoove everyone reading this thread to also read this:

"Understanding the Predatory Nature of Sexual Violence"
David Lisak, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts Boston.
http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/pdf…

A pull quote:

"Researchers discovered that it was possible to gather accurate data from these men because they did not view themselves as rapists. They shared the very widespread belief that rapists were knife-wielding men in ski masks who attacked strangers; since they did not fit that description, they were not rapists and their behavior was not rape. This has allowed researchers to study the motivations, behaviors and background characteristics of these so-called “undetected rapists.”"
87
@ I hate screen names: It's soooo nice to finally hear someone (besides myself) making those arguments. I've known several women who were raped, yet didn't say no or struggle (and were fully capable of doing so) and I always wondered if the guys involved even realized what they had done. I have been in some scary situations myself and found that calmly telling the guy "I do not consent and if you continue this WILL be rape" made them stop rather quickly.

We shouldn't blame the victims, but personal responsibility is important too. Dressing in revealing clothes or getting drunk doesn't mean they're asking for it. However, women are at higher risk for abuse so that means some precautions are in order. If I go to a nightclub, I take friends who know me and will watch out for me if I stupidly get too drunk to take care of myself. I foolishly accepted a drink from a stranger once that I didn't watch the bartender make and guess what? I got drugged. But because I brought a support system with me, nothing happened except that I got a wicked bad hangover (and quite the scare). I don't like that I have to anticipate that sort of malicious intent, but it still happens so I figure it's best to minimize the opportunities for it. I know it can't always be helped. Friends sometimes bail, things happen that can't be anticipated. But- in all the situations I've personally known of I was always struck by how easily it could all have been avoided by either not going off alone with a stranger or simply saying no.
88
#72 - "Yes, women sometimes lie about being raped. But I think a lot more women are too intimidated by the leagl system to even charge a lot of raped. I think that most women feel they just ton't have the evidence needed and that the process will just humilate them further. But as a man, I don't expect you to understand just how vulnerable a woman feels when it comes to sexual violence."

Some in the legal system will also try to make a liar out of many women who are indeed crime victims. When put through the ringer of the defense industry some will switch their story because they no longer want to be witnesses for the state. (Plaintiffs in criminal cases cannot back down unless the prosecutor wants to drop charges). Attorneys who defend sexual predators will use whatever strategy they can get away with to get their victims to back down. I know false accusations happen but I suspect what happens to victims once they get into the legal system is the cause of many "false accusations".
89
@79: I would guess he saw her as an "easy score". He figured he could take her back to his room, and she wouldn't say no. And that's ok, right?

Well, we all know it isn't, but not everybody's been involved in this sort of debate. Not everyone understands the issue, not because it's difficult, but because they just haven't thought about it. Some people genuinely think that "No means no" is the end of the story. I don't think (personally) that "Enthusiastic Yes" is the best solution either - ideally people would just use common sense and decency, but I know we can't hope for that.

@76: Did you get it through to your ex-friend that he'd nearly committed sexual assault? I know it would be a pretty difficult conversation to have, but I genuinely believe some people just haven't thought through whether doing a drunk girl (who they wouldn't have reason to believe would otherwise consent) is okay or not.

On that reason-to-believe-they-would-otherwise-consent thing... That's why I like the common sense and decency thing. My wife and I know what's ok between us - even if one or both of us is drunk. In fact, there are one or two things that are ONLY on the cards when one or the other of us is drunk, but then it's DEFINITELY on the cards. Enthusiastically so.

But you know... That's a different standard that we've negotiated as part of a long-term relationship.
90
I had an ex boyfriend who was falsely accused of rape. The chick wanted him kicked out of his dorm so she could try to fuck his roommate. No one believed her due to the sheer impracticality of it, (5'8 140 pound guy vs. 5'10 300 pound woman??) the fact that everyone knew she was after the roommate and hated my ex, and that she couldn't get her facts straight. He still got kicked out of the dorm no refund, and had to pay huge legal fees to defend himself. He ended up flunking out of college due to the psychological and financial stress. Falsely accusing someone of rape is closely akin to rape itself.
91
#87 - Taking personal responsibility goes both ways. Guys who do not get clear consent before having sex with someone they don't know is a good place to start. What kind of an idiot does that!? (I would have to wonder if such a fool is too stupid to even understand if he crosses the line and rapes someone.) If they don't want to be falsely accused they should take responsibility for themselves. They should not go for women who don't really want them and don't give clear consent. They can stop sniveling that these women should say no or put up a fight. Women don't owe them anything. They put themselves in situations where they wound up with legal troubles and getting out of them depends on members of an entire demographic having their credibility compromised if they are crime victims. I’d say this privilege should come with a heavy load of personal responsibility. If these dumb guys would stop blaming the crazy females they screw for rape victim’s lack of credibility then perhaps they would not be obligated to carry such a load.
92
@90: Yes, a 5'8 140 pound guy CAN rape a 5'10 300 pound woman. Yes, he CAN rape her even if she has the audacity to want to have sex with his roommate. Yes, he CAN rape her even if she hates him. Yes, he CAN rape her in such a way that leaves her unable to remember the details clearly later.

I don't know if he did rape her. If he didn't, my sympathy goes out to him.

Nevertheless, the fact that you take that stuff as an obvious reason to disbelieve her is very revealing of the kind of culture we live in.

And the equation at the end of your post --
kicked out of a dorm + expensive legal fees + psychological & financial stress ≈ rape
-- is laughable.
93
Hey, 72, if I can tell you stories about cancer survival and losing the family farm to the bankers, does that mean I win?

Sad stories do not equal compelling arguments.
94
@ I Hate Screen Names: I love you. You say everything my husband and I would say, and we're both feminists.
95
While I agree that false accusation of rape is horrible and will most definitely ruin the accused's life, I think we have to be careful not to compare it's effects to the effects of being raped. As a survivor of rape, I have to say that five years later I still have nightmares, where I wake up terrified. I still have panic attacks when I walk by certain places where I think my accuser might be (I knew him before the assault). I still have moments during consensual sex with my now husband where I have very real flashbacks and need to stop, and I still fell an overwhelming sense of rage, when I think about what happened to me. These feelings will never go away, and even though he was convicted, I still have to deal with the lifelong effects of what happened to me, compounded by the traumatic and humiliating experience of having to testify in court and justify, why while on a date, I chose to wear a skirt, describe the underwear I had on, and describe what happened in front of my assailant, a judge my parents and two male lawyers.
I think we have to understand that while a false accusation can be devastating, the emotional aftermath is not comparable to being raped.

I also wanted to add to the discussion that while false accusation does happen, the instances of people who are assaulted and never come forward is much much higher.
96
All right people, time to pack it in. I hope we've all learned something valuable here.
97
Let's stipulate that there are many more unreported rapes than false accusations.

It doesn't seem to me that the existence of false accusations tells us anything about the true number of rapes (reported+unreported); nor does the fact of many unreported rapes suggest that there are not also many false accusations. The two things are unrelated.
98
@97 Unless (as I meant to suggest) the most plausible explanation for a low true-report rate would also be expected to cause a low false-report rate. And that's exactly what the research suggests.
99
@98 seems like this cuts both ways.

Among reports of rapes to police, some small (~3%, if I read the DOJ stats correctly) proportion are discovered to be false. An additional small proportion of false reports are not discovered, and there is a false conviction. I don't think anyone knows the false conviction rate (of all rape convictions, what number are false) but it's considerably more than zero. DNA and other new evidence have led to hundreds of exonerations in the last couple of decades. So the real rate of false reports/all reports is >3%.

On unreported claims (true+false), it seems to me that there is a a substantial incentive for false accusers to make their claim without going to police. Libel is a much less serious risk than providing false information to the police, so a false accuser would minimize her risk by not talking to the police.

Furthermore, as noted by other posts, a non-police accusation may serve the false accuser as well or better than a criminal complaint by creating massive damage to the reputation of the accused, while providing him no opportunity to rebut the claim. Consider the incentives for a false accuser: she wants to hurt some guy, and she knows he's not a rapist (if he were, there'd be no `false' about it). That means there's not much likelihood of blowback from the accusation. Putting up a poster with his image and the word RAPIST is therefore going to get the job done, without a lot of risk to the accuser. What's he going to do, put up posters with his own image and the word FEMINIST?

So I'm at a loss to see what the incidence of false accusation (in or out of the criminal justice process) tells us about the rate of unreported true rapes, or vice-versa. I've read the post you recommended @29, and the summarized research articles there deal with perpetrators, not with false report rates. To what research do you refer @98?
100
@99 The 2006 report of the National Violence Against Women Survey is a good start. (http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/21034…) According to that report, the primary reasons appealed to by female victims of rape in the US who do not report rapes to the police involve the social costs of exposure, including fear of retribution from the rapist and fear of social retribution from acquaintances. Those social costs accompany false reports of rape as well as true ones, so there is reason to believe that fear of social retribution or direct retribution will also deter potential false-accusers.

(And then there's the additional deterrent fact you pointed out: libel is a crime.)

By the way -- my understanding was that the DOJ estimate was not equal to the number of acquittals, but rather an estimate of the number of false accusations, period. There are ways of estimating the rate of "error" in the legal system.

If I'm mistaken about the DOJ statistic, then at any rate such an estimate WAS made by the FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/96CRIME/9…) though the report excludes accusations of substance rape and accusers who declined to cooperate with investigators, so who knows how revealing it really is.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.