Quick Hit: False Rape Accusations and Rape Culture
This post reminds me why Amanda Hess at The Sexist is quickly becoming one of my favorite bloggers.
Update: Apparently Feministing love for Hess runs deep. My bad.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Quick Hit: False Rape Accusations and Rape Culture.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16097
Of course with a case like the one reported, the general public (and men's rights commenters) assume that because she recanted her statement, it must be because she was lying originally and the men are innocent.
When in fact she could be lying *now* and the men could be guilty.
There are many reasons why rape victims recant their statements. She could have been intimidated or threatened. She could have decided that she didn't want the stress of a trial. She could have blamed herself for the incident... there are many possible reasons, and no-one has the right to assume that she in fact made a false rape accusation.
The proper response would be to treat them as rapists forever just in case.
What is a legal and socially acceptable way to treat an accused rapist or other felon, walking free? I know some via my wife. We call them friends and family.
Are you envisioning ostracizing or a form of shunning, which I have no problem with; or some sort of punishment of your own?
Given that they didn't actually do anything, I'd say an apology (to them) and letting them get on with their lives is probably the best option at this point.
I should apologize to my wife's friends and family that she has accused them of, e.g., nine years of abuse at the hands of her stepmother, the most prominent abuser (and only one my wife attempted to escape from) with the scars and bald spots to show for it, and let them go on with their lives?
I'll tell you my own plan prior to meeting my wife's stepmother in 1995, was to secretly kill her, but decided not to, because I didn't want to go to jail. Unlike DV and rape, Japanese police and society take murder, or crimes by foreigners very seriously.
If they're not demonstrably innocent, then they're hardly equivalent to the accused rapists being discussed.
In this particular case, I believe a video came out that shows the girl willingly participating, and that she recanted her story as soon as she heard there even was a video, before she saw what was on it (so its not an issue of being selectively filmed somehow showing an innaccurate picture).
It sucks in general to film someone having sex without their knowledge, but in this particular case I'd say it was pretty lucky that it happened, since those four men really were unjustly accused. Its really unfortunate that it happened this way at all, since the publicity will hurt real rape victims. But as unfortunate as that is, it looks like the facts in this case are pretty clear that they didn't rape her.
the article she linked to is fucked up on so many levels. I don't even know what to say about it
The thing that's really screwed up about this case is that the police & DA were about to convict--and had already publicly charged and defamed--the men based on one allegation, and NO supporting evidence. THAT really sucks.
No, you know what really sucks? That on a blog like Feministing the commenters here can't even seem to understand the main points of this article or the other one on the Hofstra case. Really, I've read all these comments and I'm amazed that hardly anyone seems to get it.
C'mon Llevinso, that's unfair. You don't really mean that its ok for these guys to be defamed do you?
As far as Hess' piece goes, its interesting, but a little hard to fully digest. Certainly, I can agree with Hess that the culture basically assumes that a woman having sex with 5 men is rape (while a man having sex with 5 women is heaven)...and that society's predisposition that women are supposed to act like they don't want sex, while men are supposed to press for it, will lead--inevitably--to misunderstandings. Beyond that, though, Hess doesn't get to the point of offering solutions, or even to a point of shedding light on this particular case.
Part of the problem is that feminist perceptions differ here, considerably. In her sympathy for the woman Joye Brown reinforces the very rape culture Hess decries by calling the men "despicable" & essentially suggesting old fashioned patriarchy as the answer ( http://www.newsday.com/columnists/joye-brown/hofstra-rape-case-five-questions-stand-out-1.1458002 ). So, I don't think its fair to characterize this as something easy.
That's not at all what I said, nor is that what Hess was claiming or what the other Feministing article was saying. That's my point. No one is actually getting these articles at all. I thought on this blog it would be different but it's not and it's highly disappointing.
so please explain to use what the articles mean
These things drive me crazy. Lots of problems here. One is false accusations make it harder for women who were really attacked to be believed. If no one was going to believe me I would never want to report, and if no one reports REAL rapists. Well they go free and keep hurting people. The other problem is for some reason every guy I talk to thinks that more men are falsely imprisoned on rape charges than women are actually raped. I don't even know how to respond to this! Any ideas?
If I'm being honest i think a guy being falsely imprisoned for something as heinous as rape, and ruining his life. Is just as evil a crime. But I also hate that every rape victim seems to be guilty of lying until proven innocent.
Statistically, a woman is more likely to fake her own death than to cry rape. In fact, if I've got my facts straight, only 2% of reported rapes are false accusations.
wow that is a low percentage!
how can that even be proven. sounds like a convenient stat
It can't be. There are two confounding problems. The first is that in the vast majority of cases police can only investigate whether intercourse did or did not happen. These cases make up the majority of the ~8% of false allegations which are reported as false to the DoJ. For example, cases where the accused was found to have a solid alibi would fall into this category. Cases where the victim failed to fully pursue the charges (but did not recant the charges), or cases which had insufficient evidence for prosecution but did not have solid evidence that the crime did not happen would not fall into this category.
However, considering the majority of assaults occur between people who know each other, the prosecution hinges on issues of consent rather than issues of the intercourse occurring.
Issues of consent are very difficult to prove or disprove barring videotaped evidence which could not be accounted for (such as this case), or (somehow) witnesses who cannot be indicted as complicit in the crime, they will require a recantation by the accuser. Yet we cannot even rely on recantations because depending on the pressures experienced by the accuser the recantation might be false.
At the same time this is not a reason to distrust all recantations. Not all criminals are particularly smart, and some people have bragged to third parties that they have made a false report, which of course makes it far harder to believe that they were coerced into their (unwitting) confession.
Regarding 2% the largest problem is that it doesn't seem to be backed up by any research I am aware of, while I have read attempts made to find some basis for the 2% figure and as far as I am aware they have not been able to link it to an academic source.
People may find this helpful. It is worth reading.
"False Reports: Moving Beyond the Issueto Successfully Investigate and Prosecute Non-Stranger Sexual Assault" by Dr. Kimberly A Lonsway, Sgt. Joanne Archambault (ret.) and Dr. David Lisak; from the National Center for the Prosecution of Violence Against Women via the National District Attorneys Association website
http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf
It is IMHO, well balanced. I have read for example, the Kanin study and that of the Air Force, reporting 41% and up to 60% of rape accusations being false. There are problems with the methodology of those studies, small sample size among them, as well as how "false" is determined. To paraphrase the Air Force report, their resolution of how to prove the unprovable was to accept a recantation or refusal to undergo a polygraph as proof. One would do as well to accept accusation as proof of crime, and do away with law enforcement and the legal system, and allow lynch mobs to administer justice. We know how well that works for African American men.
My only skepticism regarding the Lonsway report (I have not read their cited studies) is the very low sample size of some of the studies cited, i.e., in the low hundreds, or in a single community, by a single law enforcement organization, decades ago. One should not generalize about US culture today, based on e.g., 116 cases in Toronto in 1970. They write:
[begin quote]
Of course, in reality, no one knows—and in fact no one can possibly know—exactly how many sexual assault reports are false. However, estimates narrow to the range of 2-8% when they are based on more rigorous research of case classifications using specific criteria and incorporating various protections of the reliability and validity of the research—so the “study” does not simply codify the opinion of one detective who may believe a variety of myths regarding false reporting.
[end quote]
My definition of a false report of rape (or any other crime or wrongdoing) agrees with that of the writers: "A false report is a report of a sexual assault that did not happen (i.e., it was not completed or attempted)." i.e. It simply did not happen. However, I would go further, as this definition includes honest misunderstanding, e.g., misidentification of a rapist or accused. I would require a false report of a crime to be a deliberate fabrication by someone cognizant enough to understand what they were doing. Example:
MSNBC: False Rape Allegation Thwarted By Police Camera
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgxwPU0W-Wg
That is a rare example of something that can be proven DID NOT HAPPEN.
Links such as these from the Attorney Genera's Sexual Assault Task Force of Oregon, linked in the "False Reports" article are also useful
False Allegations, Recantations, and Unfounding in the Context of Sexual Assault
http://www.oregonsatf.org/resources/docs/False_Allegations.pdf
FALSE REPORTS AND CASE UNFOUNDING
Recommendations for Law Enforcement Response
http://www.oregonsatf.org/resources/docs/LE_Rec_Practice_False_Reports_Unfounding.pdf
[start quote]
The Sexual Assault Training Institute (SATI) has trained over 500 law enforcement officers across Oregon. False reports are the issue most often raised by participants during SATI trainings.
Below is a typical exchange between an Instructor and participant.
• Participant – Maybe some areas/agencies don’t see that many false reports but my agency has found that anywhere from 30-70% of reports of sexual assault are false.
???? Instructor – Did sexual contact occur between the parties involved in these reports? And were there any eye witnesses to the incident?
???? Participant – Yeah, the alleged perpetrator said it was consensual and no, there weren’t any eye witnesses.
???? Instructor – Both the victim and the suspect agreed that there was sexual contact but the victim reported force and the suspect reported consent?
???? Participant – Yes.
[end quote]
No shit, officer? 30-70% or more of men accused of rape who admit to sexual contact claim it was consensual?
Recantation does not mean false.
Unfounded does not mean false.
Accuser refusing to cooperate does not mean false.
Recantation does not mean false.
Unfounded does not mean false.
Accuser refusing to cooperate does not mean false.
Unfounded means that either the allegations do not meet the legal standard for rape, or that there is compelling evidence that alleged crime did not occur.
Further definition you included earlier does not actually include witness misindenfication because that does not suggest that rape did not occur.
Regarding the earlier issue
However, estimates narrow to the range of 2-8% when they are based on more rigorous research of case classifications using specific criteria and incorporating various protections of the reliability and validity of the research—so the “study” does not simply codify the opinion of one detective who may believe a variety of myths regarding false reporting.
They have narrowed the lower band. It is good that the studies limit themselves to cases that they can prove were falsely reported because that makes for good science. However, we know that many cases provide no evidence in any direction, to simply assume that all of those cases must be true as a result of lack of evidence is in error. At the same time we cannot extrapolate from the current data set to the larger group because we don't know how closely related the false allegations which are found are to the false allegations which are never uncovered.
"Unfounded means that either the allegations do not meet the legal standard for rape, or that there is compelling evidence that alleged crime did not occur."
Yes. Or. Also, or law enforcement could not or would not find evidence to prove rape.
Unfounded, as in the FBI 8%, includes false. It does not equal false. False, to the writers, means it didn't happen as claimed, or at all. My personal definition of false also means deliberate falsehood, not a mistake.
Yes. Or. Also, or law enforcement could not or would not find evidence to prove rape.
No then it would not meet the standards of unfounded. It would simply be a case of insufficient evidence. Unfounded does not simply mean incapable of being proved as it might be assumed in common parlance, but instead, like I said earlier, requires the allegations to be provably untrue, or for the allegations to fail to meet the legal requirements for the claim that was made.
Unfounded, as in the FBI 8%, includes false. It does not equal false.
True, however, barring a person being unfamiliar with the details of the charge of rape, it is identical to false allegations with the sole exception of contravening circumstances misleading the prosecution which can happen in any crime, be it false allegation or direct criminal endeavor.
False, to the writers, means it didn't happen as claimed, or at all. My personal definition of false also means deliberate falsehood, not a mistake.
How many times do you honestly think that a persons conception of rape drastically diverges from the legal definition of rape in the modern day? Unfounded does not mean mistaken identity, it does not suggest the type of cases where a crime undoubtedly occured but the police nabbed the wrong suspect. It means the type of cases where the incident could be proven wrong. The type of cases one brave poster admitted to having contributed to in the previous topic.
There's a reason I included links.
FALSE REPORTS AND CASE UNFOUNDING
Recommendations for Law Enforcement Response
http://www.oregonsatf.org/resources/docs/LE_Rec_Practice_False_Reports_Unfounding.pdf
Definitions
• A False Report is a report, to a law enforcement agency, of a sexual assault crime that an investigation factually proves never occurred.
• Case Unfounding is defined by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting, as a method of case clearance utilized for reports that are found to be false or baseless.
o A false report has the meaning listed above.
o A baseless report is a reported sexual assault that does not meet the elements of a crime (often the result of mistake of law or insufficient information collected during the initial report).
False = factually proven didn't happen.
Unfounded per FBI = false OR baseless
Insufficient evidence is included in "unfounded."
Furthermore, via Oregon SATF:
FALSE REPORTS AND CASE UNFOUNDING
Recommendations for Law Enforcement Response
"Identifying a false report of sexual assault requires a thorough investigation that factually proves that a criminal sexual offense neither occurred nor was attempted. While case unfounding is an appropriate method of case clearance when a case has been determined to be false, it is not an appropriate method of case clearance for reported incidents where the investigation was unable to corroborate or substantiate a sex crime. Using case unfounding as a clearance method when there is insufficient corroboration to prove or disprove a report of sexual assault is improper."
You: "Unfounded does not mean mistaken identity, it does not suggest the type of cases where a crime undoubtedly occured but the police nabbed the wrong suspect. It means the type of cases where the incident could be proven wrong."
Or. OR "baseless." Unfounded explicitly includes per above linked PDF, but does not EQUAL false. False, to FBI and Oregon SATF = proven wrong.
I'd hate to be in a situation I needed to "prove" an accusation wrong, because I just can't see how that is possible for me who has regular intimate contact with clients. In cases like that 88 year old woman, only the fact that the entire staff had direct experience with her as well as some directly witnessed her experiencing delusions, "proved" my male coworker and I weren't assaulting her. If the woman had not (when lucid) explicitly identified "the man" as a Christmas ornament visible from her bed, or a dwarf who lived "in the ceiling," we'd have been fucked. If her descriptions had been vague, or she pointed out one of us as "the man," we'd have been fucked. (For that matter, there is no way I would be able to "prove" I am NOT abusing my wife or children, because even lack of physical evidence, recantation or videotaped evidence are not accepted by many.)
If any other resident or family member claimed that a staff member "fondled" them during or under the pretense of providing care (and all sorts of accusations are made in our line of work, from stealing non-existent or long gone objects, to kidnapping and entrapment, to attempted murder while simply wiping someone with a damp cloth), we'd be up shit creek, because most of the time there are no witnesses.
Insufficient evidence is included in "unfounded."
Insufficient evidence during the initial report which is the key part you missed. Insufficient evidence as a whole, and insufficient evidence in that initial report are different things.
What unfounded means is that if a person comes to the police to report a crime, and, after their description of everything that occurred, and assuming that everything they said was completely accurate, there was not a crime committed. Not because of an inability to prove the allegations to a court of law, but because none of the allegations were actionable. Only then can the report be decided to be "unfounded".
I know, right? Tell that to your skeptical guy friends!
Not to mention the fact the rapists are RARELY incarcerated.
Wait, let me get this straight....someone video recorded this on their cellphone???
WTF.
Somehow I doubt whomever took it was taking it as evidence against rape.
Four people are falsely accused of rape, and what gets your WTF is that the incident was fortunately videotaped?
I could give lots of WTFs to various things about this incident but I felt that others have already covered that.
Like another commenter said, obviously she didn't know she was being filmed which I see as a lack of respect towards the woman and---shock!--- a violation of consent. All these guys cared about was doing some type of "kinky" sexual act and proving that they did it. And I find that disgusting.
These things don't happen in a vaccum.
"All these guys cared about was doing some type of "kinky" sexual act and proving that they did it.
Really? And what did the woman care about doing? Why not just blame the guys for making her want to do it?
It is messed up that they recorded her without her knowledge. But in this case, I think it was lucky that they did. A sleazy action happened to save 4 guys from being sent to jail for something they didn't do.
I'm just wondering how many guys on campus, dreadfully afraid of the ever-present threat of false rape accusations, have changed their everyday behaviors?
Do they avoid walking alone at night, lest someone accuse them of being ontoward, with no convenient witness to support their innocence?
Do they watch how much they drink at parties, ever-at-risk for drinking too much and thus being lulled into a false sense of security at the hands of false accusers?
Do they dress down, rather than wear their coolest threads, and maybe even muss themselves up, lest they appear to fit the stereotype of guys on-the-make -- easy prey for the false accuser crowd?
Do they gain weight, wear pocket protectors, become fluent in C++ and fixate on arachnids, to allow others to defend them against false accusers by chorusing "What, that Geek???"
Do they limit themselves to vanilla intimate encounters - one sober and straight partner whom they actually know and have spent time with in public previously, in a stereotypic location such as a bedroom, without benefit of camera - rather than risk the false accustations that come with gang sex with strangers in restrooms?
How much do these guys have to change their daily behavior, in face of these threats? How many minutes out of every hour must they worry about such things?
Sigh Every day the world becomes more and more complicated...
Well when you put it like that, false rape accusations are pretty awesome after all?
Do your responses ever add anything to a conversation? Despite your flippant attitude, I think Fat Old Man's comment perfectly illustrates how minute the problem is on whole. Every female human I've ever met has been taught in one way or another to adjust herself and her behavior to avoid sexual assault in its various forms. If the fear of false allegations were anywhere nearly as prevalent as one would be led to believe by MRA types, men would be adjusting their behaviors to try to assure they aren't falsely accused.
Are false rape allegations bad? YES! No one is saying they are "awesome." Seriously, hyperbolic much?
I guess if you consider being falsely accused of a heinous crime, which leads to ruined reputation, jail, and historically judicial or vigilante murder a "minute" problem "on the whole" I must sound "hyperbolic much." If on the other hand you believe that the distinction between innocent and guilty is pretty important, then no, and what kind of person would dedicate themselves to "illustrating" that false rape accusations, while "bad," are only bad in a "minute" way?
Oh, did these guys go through a trial and get convicted and thrown in jail?
Oh, did the comment I was replying to limit the conversation strictly to this incident?
Even when there's a shit ton of evidence, the vast majority of rapists aren't convicted. Stop being irrational!
The exception is when a black man rapes a white woman and the police just pluck the first black guy they see off the street for arrest.
Or when a white woman lies about a black man, and he's killed? Or about a white man and his reputation is dragged through the mud for a year?
Thinking it's bad to punish or humiliate innocent people isn't being "irrational," it's just not being Scalia.
It is bad to punish innocent people. That doesn't apply to the Hofstra case so I'm not sure what you're going on about. Nobody has advocated punishing innocent people.
If there hadn't been a video of the intercourse, these men would be in prison for years.
Do you honestly expect me to believe that you would not have advocated for their punishment if that video had not existed?
My advocating for their punishment and a jury convicting them are two different things. In a world where ACTUAL RAPISTS rarely spend any time behind bars it's highly unlikely the absence of video would have resulted in much of anything for these men.
They could establish sex took place and few would have believed she engaged in the act consensually if there was not evidence to show that she did. You would have advocated for these men to be convicted, and the jury would very likely convict them. You make light of that as if every time there is some miraculously exculpatory evidence which will be revealed to the DA.
So yes, these men would have gone to jail if it were not for the fortuitous video evidence. And we should treat this as an attempt at an extremely serious crime which was narrowly averted. Not as a non-issue simply because the culprit was caught early.
How does your comment have anything to do with what Fat Old Man said?
His response to a discussion of false rape accusations was to point out that it's not a problem because rape is really really bad. The later, while very true, does not actually indicate the former.
It's not just a discussion of false rape allegations. The article linked is about rape culture AND false rape allegations. He also never said false rape allegations aren't bad. He was saying how women's lives are changed forever living in rape culture.
Just because you only want this discussion to be about false rape allegations doesn't make that what the article was actually about.
It's nice of you to tell me what I want. OR! you could look at FOM's actual text.
Fat Old Man said:
I'm just wondering how many guys on campus, dreadfully afraid of the ever-present threat of false rape accusations, have changed their everyday behaviors?
Do they avoid walking alone at night, lest someone accuse them of being ontoward, with no convenient witness to support their innocence?
Do they watch how much they drink at parties, ever-at-risk for drinking too much and thus being lulled into a false sense of security at the hands of false accusers?
Do they dress down, rather than wear their coolest threads, and maybe even muss themselves up, lest they appear to fit the stereotype of guys on-the-make -- easy prey for the false accuser crowd?
Do they gain weight, wear pocket protectors, become fluent in C++ and fixate on arachnids, to allow others to defend them against false accusers by chorusing "What, that Geek???"
Do they limit themselves to vanilla intimate encounters - one sober and straight partner whom they actually know and have spent time with in public previously, in a stereotypic location such as a bedroom, without benefit of camera - rather than risk the false accustations that come with gang sex with strangers in restrooms?
How much do these guys have to change their daily behavior, in face of these threats? How many minutes out of every hour must they worry about such things?
Sigh Every day the world becomes more and more complicated...
Yes, I must really be passionate about preventing discussion of actual rape, you must have me there.
His response to a discussion of false rape accusations was to point out that it's not a problem because rape is really really bad.
Please, do not mis-represent what I wrote. You are being unnecessarily disingenuous.
If you would like to further this discussion, instead, why not answer some of the questions that I presented?
If those are serious questions, then I don't know any more about their daily routines than you do. Obviously filming the event turned out to be a life-saving safety precaution.
Obviously filming the event turned out to be a life-saving safety precaution.
Walk with me a bit on this one, aleks. I'm not as ready as some people are to go all Chicken Little about the imagined horrific future of the four (plus one) guys. As some posters have noted, even in real, live, actual sexual assault cases, conviction and incarceration are quite infrequent.
[TRIGGER ALERT]
Imagine DA Rice and Chief Skrynecki talking the case over.
DA: OK, Chief, make this one a slam-dunk for me, I've got a golf date this afternoon.
C: Well, Ms. Rice, the case is kind of "problematic."
DA: Don't be silly, Chief. Girl was tied up and gang raped on a college campus. How complicated can that be? Of course, you checked the ropes for her DNA?
C: We didn't find any ropes.
DA: That's unfortunate. Well, when a person is tied up and struggles, there are ligature marks on the body. Show me the Polaroids. Wrists? Ankles?
C: Well, there weren't any ligature marks on her to photograph.
DA: You got something against golf or something, Skrynecki?? Tell me about the bruising - even without ligature marks, there's often bruising when there's restraint, right?
C: Right. (pause) The thing is, there wasn't any bruising.
DA: Any marks indicating slapping, hitting, choking, punching?
C: Uh, no. No, uh, rope marks on the paint in the bathroom stalls, either. Actually, there's not a lot of physical evidence...
DA: Did she even have sex with these guys?
C: Affirmative.
DA: Ok. Injuries?
C: Nothing inconsistent with a one-on-five.
DA: Not a lot of tact there, Skrynecki. Witnesses? Anybody see or hear anything?
C: No.
DA: No?? You're telling me these kids are gang raping this girl in the middle of a freaking college dorm, and nobody heard nothing?
C: No. Body. Heard. Nothing. Yes, M'am.
DA: In a freaking men's dormatory bathroom, where at any moment some guy who has to take a piss or his sneaked-in overnight girlfriend could wander in and discover something?
C: Nobody saw or heard anything.
DA: Shit. How long...? Look, five times even as quick as as the fastest guy takes to -- that still adds up to a decent amount of time... Nobody??
C: Nobody.
DA: (pause) Tell me they dragged her in off of the street, at least.
C: She met them at an on-campus dance party. It looks like she went back to one of the guys' dorms.
DA: Unbelieveable. What DO you have?
C: Well, we have her cell phone.
DA: Whoop-di-do. Anything else?
C: Well, she told us it happened.
DA: Look, Skrynecki, I got this burning in my middle that says it wants to grow up and become an ulcer when it's a big girl, and I'm eventually going to have to stand for re-election in this job, so I have to win my cases, not look like some kind of jerk social worker -- have you got a case, or not??
C: Well, the suspects are... er... minorities.
DA: What do they say?
C: They say they don't even know the girl, don't know why she'd make up such a story.
DA: Great. (pause) Maybe we can get a change of venue and try this thing in the Deep South, Skrynecki, and then get a change of decade, while we're at it and do it in the '50s or '60s -- preferrably the 1850s and 1860s -- instead of Lawn Guyland in 2009.
C: District Attorney Rice...
DA: You. Got. Nothing. We can play the "race card" and pick the boys up, we can play the "daddies, protect your daughters" card and the "college should be an ivory tower" card and hold them for a few days, but we probably couldn't win this case even if we had a videotape of it...
C: Uh, Ms. Rice, about that videotape...
That's a fair point-- they may not have been convicted even if this video hadn't come out. But even if they were acquitted, it would be hanging over their heads forever, and lots of people would still think they did it. Now, with this video, everyone knows they didn't rape her. Of course, everyone also knows they had group sex in a public bathroom, which could still be damaging to some job prospects, etc, but not as much as people thinking you're a violent rapist.
They must have been asking for it. Men need to learn to protect themselves from false rape allegations.
Victim blaming is cool when it's for guys, cause we're all unindicted rapists anyway?
I seriously doubt SarahMC was actually saying they SHOULD be blamed. Did you really not hear the sarcasm when she says "Men need to learn to protect themselves from false rape allegations." That's exactly what rape apologists and victim blamers say about women who get raped. That was her point.
The problem is that I didn't say women were to blame for rape. "They must have been asking for it. Men need to learn to protect themselves from false rape allegations." is sarcastic retaliation to . . . what?
I never said it was a retaliation, I just said it was sarcasm. I would think yu'd be familiar because you use it frequently.
THIS IS NO TIME FOR JOKES!
Haven't you heard!? Men are scared! That's serious business.
Sarcasm that has nothing to do with anything I've said but that she repeatedly uses as a "reply" to me? Actually, given the source, I'm certain you're correct.
Men need to use some common sense. Maybe they shouldn't go out drinking. No socializing with women. They should probably not be out late at night, period. Life's harsh. Nobody's looking out for men so if they don't want to be accused of rape they need to avoid it themselves.
If pretending I'm saying these things about female rape victims is the closest you're going to get to "rational", then far be it from me to discourage you.
many men, especially black men, adjust their behaviors and have done so for years because of attacks on men like this. they know they wont be believed, even with video evidence, so they do change their behaviors.
would your suggestion go over well with women, that they adjust their behaviors since they are victimized. shouldn't effort be put towards stopping some women from many dangerous and false accusations?
In Minnesota three circus workers were lynched in one of our few racial murders (we usually like to keep our racism lower key this far north) during the Klan years because a girl got pregnant and claimed they'd raped her rather than admit she'd had sex with her boyfriend. I'd say Jessica has a pretty strong point.
Because I am a male nurse, I adjust my behavior to try to prevent accusation of wrongdoing all the time. I recently found out that my lone male coworker, like myself, does not use use his gloved hand to clean female clients, but always uses a washcloth. ALL our female coworkers in contrast, have no problem using their gloved hands and fingers to *thoroughly* clean female clients' anal and vaginal areas when changing diapers or bathing them (try to imagine a woman having loose bowels while lying in bed with a diaper on), and no one ever suspects them of sexual abuse. Hell no. Nobody is ever going to report that I "fondled" a female client if I can help it.
Mind you, some of the symptoms of our clients' conditions that led to them being in our hospital involve their altered mental state. One late client claimed a little man who lived in the ceiling used to tell her nightly how beautiful she was and come down to demand sex, or to actually assault her and impregnate her (she was 88 years old). She used to tell anyone who would listen how "the man" (discovered to be a Christmas angel hanging on the wall) used to "use me for sex."
My male coworker and I loved her telling those stories. NOT. Only the discovery of who "the man" really was and this woman's known fixation on sex while she was dying (she disgusted her daughter and son with tales of incest like the son who "used his mother for sex") or her speaking to "the man" only she could see and hear, with witnesses, cleared our names. She also believed that I (40 years old) was a classmate of her late husband's named "Harry" or alternatively, that I was "Rodney" (name of her son). She also used to spontaneously tell me that I was handsome, "but I won't give you sex." Oh yeah, real amusing. It's just my job and my freedom.
Some of the things I find it necessary to do to prevent suspicion for being male make me wish my hospital was one of those which prohibit men from providing care to female patients without female supervision. At least then I would have "proof," as well as additional staff who could assist me, instead of being understaffed.
ekpe, I respect your first comment; it rings of truth, not just regarding sexual assault, but of allegations of many wrong-doings. For some it has always been necessary to tread carefully.
would your suggestion go over well with women, that they adjust their behaviors since they are victimized.
I have made no suggestion. It is quite likely that many women already adjust their behaviors quite often to, they hope, lessen their chances of victimization; and have done so for a long time.
shouldn't effort be put towards stopping some women from many dangerous and false accusations?
Oh, ekpe, you make me feel old. All people - men, women, children - should not speak falsely. They should not cheat or steal. They should not gossip. They should not commit murder. They should be careful about what and who they covet. This is not news. Why would you have me focus on "some women"?
Fat Old Man,
you know, I for one, was shamed about my sexuality as a man to the extent that I not only did pretty much all of what you said, but I also did not just limit myself to vanilla sex, for years I was afraid to even initiate any physical contact with a woman, because my feminist mother had told me to always respect women, and that respecting women meant to never *want anything sexual from them*. Of course, the wanting bit wasn't possible to overcome but I was so scared of accidentally becoming the alleged rapists that all men are, and, of course, I was scared of being falsely accused should I ever even touch a woman.
In fact, I was so affected by this that I needed years of serious counseling to (almost) get over my sexual shame. And if it weren't for a woman, who took the risk and initiated with me, without asking for my consent (I was happy, but she took that risk anyway), I'd still be unkissed, and to a significant degree because of my fear of being falsely accused.
So, for someone like, who has had a serious pyschological problem with exactly what you say, your comment must come accross as condescending.
Just something to consider.
Although I don't find anything particularly feminist in equating respect for women with not finding them attractive (I can't do much with your phrase "wanting anything sexual from them"); nor does drowning you in shame and anxiety seem essentially first, second, or third wave; still, I am glad that you were able to find support to ease your suffering. No one should have to limit their behaviors in the manner alluded to in my first post.
Let me understand this.
When a woman says she has been raped we believe her. ( Good policy IMO.)
When a woman says she was not raped ( ie: recants) she is lying.
I'm sorry - I see a double standard here.
It's not unusual for people to oversimplify opinions they don't agree with.
When a woman says she has been raped, yes, we should believe her. But no one is saying that when a woman says she was not raped she is lying. What myself and others have been saying is that all we really know is that she is recanting. There are reasons for an accuser to recant that exclude the innocence of the accused. We want those reasons to be acknowledged.
Of the reasons submitted, some have included:
*intimidation: threats of violence or death or revenge
*public humiliation: psychological stress from unwanted public attention and scrutiny
There are probably more but these seem to me like the most easily anticipated.
When *anyone* says they are raped, we should believe them. I have to work on being more gender neutral.
OR, the only time we should believe a woman is when she recants a rape allegation.
There's your double-standard.
"OR, the only time we should believe a woman is when she recants a rape allegation.
There's your double-standard."
Why is there talk about who to "believe?" I'd be much happier if every rape/assault accusation was investigated before we throw people in jail.
The men accused were in jail less than 24 hours.
We should expect more of our police and legal system. Why were they arrested and in jail before a serious investigation took place?
Don't 'believe' people when they accuse or recant. We should investigate all claims with the presumption of innocence.
"Rape culture does not just encourage men to proceed after she says “no.” Rape culture does not simply teach men that a lack of physical resistance is an invitation. Rape culture does not only tell men to assert ownership over whichever female body they desire. Rape culture also tells women not to claim ownership over their own bodies. Rape culture also informs women that they should not desire sex. Rape culture also tells women that saying yes makes them bad women."
Obviously, we don't know what went on here. But for me the problem is not so much that "rape culture" tells women they're bad women for saying yes to sex. I think there's a massive problem with men not acknowledging, or perhaps not fully understanding, the enormous power dynamic in play when there are four men and one woman (tied up or not) involved. I'm not saying that group sex just should never happen, but I think it's too easy for it to happen with "consent" on the woman's part, without the woman involved having full agency, or the men involved having any consideration of that. I'm not talking about legality here; legally, of course, yes means yes, and I can't see any way around that. Oh, I don't know how to finish this. You know what I mean, fuck the patriarchy etc.
what is the power dynamic there. how do you know she didnt feel empowered pulling 4 men? would you find the power dynamic tilted towards the women if i were 4 women and 1 guy?
I posted this in the other thread, going to repost here:
I really want to know if this woman knew she was being recorded on a cell phone. Did she give consent for that? If she didn't, isn't that in itself a crime? Those boys recorded her and showed it to other people. Isn't that criminal behavior anyways? Rape or no rape, that's a crime! How come no one is asking about that?
You're right. That is a perfectly valid point. Her reaction suggests she did not know there was a video, nor did she consent to any video.
"Isn't that criminal behavior anyways? Rape or no rape, that's a crime! How come no one is asking about that?"
I think people _are_ talking/thinking about it. I believe most people understand that it's wrong and illegal.
I think most people are comparing the illegal taping and the recanted rape accusation and doing some serious comparisons and finding that they would rather be convicted one than the other.
I assume she did not consent to any video. Filming her without her permission is a crime, as far as I know. But think about the real world situation. She had these 4 guys thrown in jail, potentially for years, for something they didn't do. Is any jury going to send them to jail again for a much lower level crime that ended up proving she was lying? It might not be entirely fair, but I can see the prosecutor thinking it just isn't worth pursuing this one.
Also, I think I heard that it was some unnamed 5th guy who took the video, so if they don't know who he is they might not try real hard to find out. They also all can probably argue that they weren't the one filming, and if she didn't notice they were being filmed there's no reason to assume the rest of them would notice... So possibly only one of them is guilty of filming sex without the consent of the others.