sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Punishing women for false accusation of rape
- Thread starter paddoboy
- Start date
But, is there a high number of cases of false rape accusations? Or even a moderate amount? Any time someone is falsely accused of a crime_any crime_ it's a tragedy. The challenge with finding an accurate number to represent false allegations is that it takes into account ''unfounded rapes,'' meaning - rapes that haven't been properly investigated, or the victim dropped the accusations. That scenario gets added to the false rape allegations, and it sort of inflates the numbers. Of what I've researched, roughly 8% of rapes go unfounded, and within that 8% there are fake allegations, which in other words means...completely made up allegations of rape. Equally challenging is that the number of reported rapes total is hovering around 35%. This means that many women simply don't report that they've been raped, and the reasons are many. They fear being shamed, not believed, and concerned that if they take their accusations to court, they will have to relive the ordeal all over again. Rape is a traumatizing event, whether it happens in a longterm relationship, on a date, or in a dark alley by a stranger.
You add to this, Kavanaugh being appointed to the SC, despite serious allegations of sexual misconduct, when he was a teenager. Granted, he wasn't on trial, but it is sadly surprising that as a country, the US would fail to take his accuser's story seriously enough to warrant a thorough investigation (not the rush job ordered by Trump) and instead, push him into a position of helping to decide the laws of the land. Trump is a straight up sexist womanizer, and he is the President of the US. So, for me, I see that on one hand, there are rights in place to protect me from sexual harassment at work, and the #metoo movement gives me hope that women are being believed, instead of shamed and blamed. But, what I also see is that men in power STILL get away with hurting women, and the beat goes on...
Are you equally as outraged over that? Imagine the women in the stories you've presented, being appointed to the SC and/or becoming President of the US. These women have outraged you, because not only did they break the law, but they've ruined two men's lives. Imagine they are in positions of power now, within the government despite their questionable pasts. Never underestimate the power of wealthy men in America.
So, yes, it's wrong always to falsely accuse someone of a crime, any crime ...but, the cases of which this is happening whereby men are being falsely accused of rape, is very low. My heart breaks for anyone falsely accused of rape or any other conduct, but I'm just trying to help you see the other side.
Last edited:
paddoboy:
Keep digging that hole.
Really? I wrote all that, above, and your first and primary concern is to defend your irrelevant comments about your own virility? While ignoring all the concerns raised about your attitudes to women?
You already look bad in this thread. Better to slink away from the whole thing than to ignore the main substance and to try to distract attention to irrelevancies.
Regarding your virility, since that appears to be the topic that suddenly most interests you...
If you want to change the title to something else that is an equally good, or better, descriptor, I will happily change it. It's your thread.
The subtext of your entire thread is about how allowing women too much freedom has worrying consequences for men, who are now exposed to a greater chance of being falsely accused. We might contrast this with the previous status quo, in which rape allegations so rarely got as far as a court due to women routinely being disbelieved, or else being unwilling to file a report in the first place out of fear of not being taken seriously.
Layered on top of this, you chose to denigrate the two women in the cases you chose to use as examples, referring to them as "bitches" and "lowlifes" and "arseholes", among other terms. You also implied, without any evidence, that they were both "conniving" and "vindictive". Why this was, you don't say. Maybe it's just because women can't be trusted in general, or because they hate men, or something. Who knows?
Later, you went on a rant about "feminazis" who worry you because they are apparently asserting the "superiority" of women over men. Then you kind of lost focus at various points, talking at random about abusive priests and neglectful mothers (who are also women, I note in passing), and your own sexual exploits. Oh, and you also took some time to tell us, in passing, how you think street harassment of women by men is okay.
So, it's all well and good that you now say that all you really wanted was to highlight the fact that "If a women or another man for that matter accused anyone of any serious crime is wrong in the extreme. Sexual assault or rape is also wrong in the extreme. Both can have serious consequences." But did you really imagine anybody disagrees with you on any of that? I don't think you did, and that's why I don't believe you when you say that's what you intended this thread to be about.
This was you, wasn't it?:
And then there's this:
Keep digging that hole.
Really? I wrote all that, above, and your first and primary concern is to defend your irrelevant comments about your own virility? While ignoring all the concerns raised about your attitudes to women?
You already look bad in this thread. Better to slink away from the whole thing than to ignore the main substance and to try to distract attention to irrelevancies.
Are you accusing me of telling lies, now? What have I lied about? If you're going to toss that accusation around, you'd better back it up. If you can't, then I will accept your apology.
Regarding your virility, since that appears to be the topic that suddenly most interests you...
Asked whether you have a problem with women, you chose to regale us with stories from your sexual past, as if that answers the question. In other words, you introduced the irrelevant topic of your own sex life into the conversation, not Bells.paddoboy said:No I don't have a problem with women Bells, and never have. Even with the time many years ago, when I wore a younger man's clothes, and got slapped on the arse by some Blonde. And the couple of times I was happily seduced by sheilas that I fancied anyway.
I've read all the posts. I posted in this thread before Bells did. Bells is more than capable of holding her own in a discussion like this one, as is more than clear. She hardly needs me to protect her.
We're having a disagreement. I have made no claim to being anything like what you say. I'm allowed to disagree with your views and attitudes and to call you out on them.
The original title was "Ethics, morality and justice:". I don't know what the colon is for, but the rest is the name of the subforum in which this thread currently sits. That title is useless as a descriptor of the thread content. Anybody reading it on the topic list would have no clue as to what the thread was about. So I changed it to try to reflect the actual topic, as set out in the opening post.ps: Also nice to see you cunningly change the name of this thread, not that I'm concerned too much about that.
If you want to change the title to something else that is an equally good, or better, descriptor, I will happily change it. It's your thread.
What lies? You allude to lies, but never say what they are. Tell us what these lies are.
Yes. And so? We both agree that it was wrong for the women to file a false report. That's not a problem I have with your posts here.
That's disingenuous, and you know it. Your OP did not mention any false accusations made by men. Nor did it talk about any actual rape or sexual assault. Here's your opener:
You start with a statement about "woman's equality in all forms", and how reporting rape and sexual assault (e.g. in the workplace) is a good thing, but then comes the real focus, about how allowing women to file such reports is fraught with danger, because of the "really disturbing cases" that it can lead to, which you exemplify with the two cases you chose about false. One of those turned out to contain false accusations; the other merely unproven accusations.paddoboy said:
The subtext of your entire thread is about how allowing women too much freedom has worrying consequences for men, who are now exposed to a greater chance of being falsely accused. We might contrast this with the previous status quo, in which rape allegations so rarely got as far as a court due to women routinely being disbelieved, or else being unwilling to file a report in the first place out of fear of not being taken seriously.
Layered on top of this, you chose to denigrate the two women in the cases you chose to use as examples, referring to them as "bitches" and "lowlifes" and "arseholes", among other terms. You also implied, without any evidence, that they were both "conniving" and "vindictive". Why this was, you don't say. Maybe it's just because women can't be trusted in general, or because they hate men, or something. Who knows?
Later, you went on a rant about "feminazis" who worry you because they are apparently asserting the "superiority" of women over men. Then you kind of lost focus at various points, talking at random about abusive priests and neglectful mothers (who are also women, I note in passing), and your own sexual exploits. Oh, and you also took some time to tell us, in passing, how you think street harassment of women by men is okay.
So, it's all well and good that you now say that all you really wanted was to highlight the fact that "If a women or another man for that matter accused anyone of any serious crime is wrong in the extreme. Sexual assault or rape is also wrong in the extreme. Both can have serious consequences." But did you really imagine anybody disagrees with you on any of that? I don't think you did, and that's why I don't believe you when you say that's what you intended this thread to be about.
One of the really problematic aspects is how you go from the specific to the general. Two women make false accusations against men, let us say. Therefore, you conclude that the "age of women's equality" is generally a bad idea, because the price paid by men is too high. And that's ultimately what you're asking us to buy in this thread. That's your take-home message. Isn't it?
This was you, wasn't it?:
Right. A couple of lying women and a bad mother reflects poorly on "the women's cause", in general, because, like, one women is representative of every other woman, and we're supposed to take away from the fact that one or two woman lied the message that women in general are not to be trusted, or something along those lines.paddoboy said:
And then there's this:
It kind of retrospectively justifies him calling you a jerk, doesn't it?
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Maybe we should change the title to "Paddo's (Alleged) Past Sex Life".
Or should that be "Sex Pest Life"
Arf arf.
Riiiight. You keep telling yourself that; maybe someone will believe it.
You're not really following the discussion, are you.
If it's the same study I saw, that 8% includes women who decide later to not press charges. In other words, they make the accusation, and then back off later. Many of these ARE actual rapes. I know of one such rape personally; it really happened.
So the actual number is almost certainly lower than that.
(From a study of that report: "Despite these guidelines, numerous studies have discovered that the misclassification of cases by law enforcement agencies is routine. Cases in which the victim is unable or unwilling to cooperate, in which evidence is lacking, in which the victim makes inconsistent statements, or in which the victim was heavily intoxicated frequently get classified as 'unfounded' or 'no-crimed.'")
Yep. And imagine what message that sends to the next rape victim. "Don't come forward or we will destroy your life and your family's."
From 30 seconds of googling:
Nikki Yovino of NY was jailed for 3 years for a false accusation of rape.
Jemma Beale of London was jailed for 10 years for several false accusations.
Sarah-Jane Parkinson of Canberra was jailed for three years for a single false accusation.
Yea, and that is taken into account, too. So, the actual number of completely ''fake'' allegations is very low. Not to say that those women shouldn't be prosecuted for reporting a crime that didn't happen, but it would seem that the outrage is a bit misguided on the part of some men who seem to suggest that this is way worse than it is. There are people who are incarcerated right now, who didn't commit the crimes they're accused of, mainly African American men. Where's all the outrage for them?
What's interesting to note about that info ^^, is some men who are convicted of rape and assault, serve less jail time than women who are falsely accusing men of rape.
Yep. An interestingstat that I saw was that a typical guy has higher odds of being raped than having a false rape accusation made against him. Which would seem to indicate that many men are focusing on the wrong problem.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factc...y-to-be-raped-than-be-falsely-accused-of-rape
Jerk.
What are the data sources for your graph? By those numbers it looks like rape / false rape allegations from a very small population.
From the above referenced study in the UK (which is fairly well supported, with data sources called out) men are 230 times more likely to be raped than be falsely accused. I can see that number being different by a factor of 2 or 5 or something in different cultures - but not two orders of magnitude.
@ sculptor
I googled that graph, found it under ''images,'' clicked on the graph under ''visit''- and it led me here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/9hraly/fact_checking_false_rape_accusations_and_why_we/
In skimming through it, at first I thought it was a guy with an ax to grind, but he seems to suggest that false rape allegations are over hyped, and the narrative doesn't hold up to the numbers available.
That graph doesn't make sense when you read through the article, though.
I googled that graph, found it under ''images,'' clicked on the graph under ''visit''- and it led me here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensLib/comments/9hraly/fact_checking_false_rape_accusations_and_why_we/
In skimming through it, at first I thought it was a guy with an ax to grind, but he seems to suggest that false rape allegations are over hyped, and the narrative doesn't hold up to the numbers available.
That graph doesn't make sense when you read through the article, though.
Last edited:
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
have you been mixing anti depressants with uppers & alcohol ?
random numbers turned into a bi-partisan pie chart make skyience
you seem to mave missed out all the domestic sexual assault and domestic rape
you have failed to label male assault by sexual orientation, most of which will be male on male sexual assault and female on male domestic violence & sexual assault.
but thats ok if you want to simply walk about wearing the bloodied corpse of rape victims as some type of self actualization process to make you feel powerful.
i guess...
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
I posted the above to illustrate the simple fact that we do not have a good objective study of the problem.
ergo, statistics on the matter always have a subjective element, which renders them inaccurate.
I mentioned Gary Dotson to illustrate just how wrong the process can go.
the good news?
As a percentage, more men were falsely convicted of murder than of rape.
Our criminal justice system is flawed.
And, I ain't sure that it can be fixed .......ergo http://www.innocenceproject.org/
ergo, statistics on the matter always have a subjective element, which renders them inaccurate.
I mentioned Gary Dotson to illustrate just how wrong the process can go.
the good news?
As a percentage, more men were falsely convicted of murder than of rape.
Our criminal justice system is flawed.
And, I ain't sure that it can be fixed .......ergo http://www.innocenceproject.org/
How long would DNA evidence last for a rape victim that was subsequently murdered by their rapist?
This man got convicted of at least 11 murders and other charges over a time frame of 22 years starting from 1985. From DNA evidence (mostly).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grim_Sleeper
https://www.laweekly.com/grim-sleepers-sole-survivor/
I can't find a clear statistic for rape and murder to cover it ups.
This man got convicted of at least 11 murders and other charges over a time frame of 22 years starting from 1985. From DNA evidence (mostly).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grim_Sleeper
https://www.laweekly.com/grim-sleepers-sole-survivor/
(And he probably got away with a lot more,
I can't find a clear statistic for rape and murder to cover it ups.
Last edited:
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
point taken
see people trying to monetize it faster than they can find anyone to cure
maybe they need to employ some prey teh gay away preacher counselors with their fake diplomas.
it must have death violence & torture to keep its self happy and rich.
THAT is the problem, it breeds psychopaths & sadists.
Munchhausen by proxy ...
poisoning the people to maintain control of the profit and process like a narcissist must keep control of the attention of the group.
here is a legal question for some USA law students
why should a private prison company be allowed to profit from the criminal act of a person when the victim is not allowed to equally profit from that same offender ?
NOTE "profit" goes on top of cost of liability and loss.
see people trying to monetize it faster than they can find anyone to cure
maybe they need to employ some prey teh gay away preacher counselors with their fake diplomas.
most of those will be black
it is designed to make profit out of death violence & torture.
it must have death violence & torture to keep its self happy and rich.
THAT is the problem, it breeds psychopaths & sadists.
Munchhausen by proxy ...
poisoning the people to maintain control of the profit and process like a narcissist must keep control of the attention of the group.
here is a legal question for some USA law students
why should a private prison company be allowed to profit from the criminal act of a person when the victim is not allowed to equally profit from that same offender ?
NOTE "profit" goes on top of cost of liability and loss.
And when he was in his twenties. And some odd problematic behavior when he was on the Federal bench.
His behavior while on various Republican political campaign teams as a committed Republican partisan and political operative - the bulk of his career (he was never a trial lawyer), and one would think a disqualification for the Supreme Court - was never investigated, afaik.
The striking thing was his apparent sense of entitlement to the job - if you're a normal person, imagine behaving as he did in a job interview and expecting to get hired anyway. No wonder people will pay tens of thousands of dollars to get their kids admitted to one of those schools - it's a ticket to a lifetime of impunity.
If you are male. A Kavanaugh for a husband, if you are female.
What does the OP suggest should be - in theory - Kavanaugh's punishment for the many false accusations he made and allowed to be made for his benefit? For the miseries visited upon the women he denied and accused?