Gangrape Rewarded
I attended this trial. It was especially interesting that the prosecutor kept referring to the three men involved as ‘boys’, when they were fully grown men. The woman was 17.
The judge found inconsistencies in all of the stories, thus establishing reasonable doubt in every story. Yet he convicted the victim. ‘Boys’ will be ‘boys’.
The young woman’s friends were a classmate at high school and her mother. The mother a) has always been seen with an alcoholic beverage or high on prescription pills by all who know her, b) provided the 17-year old with the alcohol she’d had that evening, which she stole from the store she cashiers at and c) was awaiting her boyfriend’s return to her home within two months of the rape. That boyfriend was in prison for molesting his own daughter. That’s hardly a credible witness with any sympathy for victims of sexual assault. But none of this could be introduced into evidence. Only the 17 year old’s sexual history could be exposed.
Additionally, the two ‘friends’ were the ones who convinced the 17 year old that she should report it to the police. So if the young woman is guilty, the instigating accessories to her ‘crime’ are considered credible experts about how a rape victim should act.
The outcome took me completely by surprise, as it did many others. But then, boys will be boys.
(My report cannot be truly objective as I’ve known the victim since she was a baby. I was sufficiently upset at the proceedings that, in the hallway outside the courtroom, I told the prosecutor and lead detective that they were “miserable pricks” and “a disgrace to their profession.”)
December 3rd, 2005 at 9:31 am
Sometimes I think getting angry is all that’s left. Angry enough to reach for pitchforks and torches.
It’s one of the reasons why I stopped writing, I think. Everything sounded like a howl.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:02 am
I’m sorry–actually, I’m amazed that you could actually put together some coherent sentences this morning, because I know I would have to straitjacketed and sedated.
You’ve been ‘hanging in there’ through so much this year you must have arms of iron.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:35 am
Kevin,
Words of comfort fail in the face of this horrifying story.
Is this Judge “appointed?”
Does this young girl understand that she is not the guilty one here?
Is she getting any help?
I’m not asking for immediate answers here, but if there is anything we in “blogtopia,” (and am I the only one who finds skippy’s formulation bitterly ironic, increasingly, I guess Emma is evidence I’m not) can do to support this young woman, do let us know, whenever you can get beyond the pain of knowing this can still happen, not that gangrape can occur, but that a victim who has the guts to say “no” more than once, and go to the police, ask for justice, can stukk find herself victimized a second time by the very people who are supposed to be seeking justice for her, And that goes for you, as well.
I, too wonder that you could write about this. Thank-you for doing so.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:41 am
Kevin, that you managed to restrain yourself from actually punching those incompetent “professional” hypocrites demonstrates your superiority. But that still doesn’t help to deal with such injustice. I hope you’ll be able to find a way to redress the balance - maybe via an article in the press about this mis-trial?
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:22 pm
That’s absolutely horrendous. The judge believed that the evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she was lying? Because she wasn’t upset enough immediately afterward?
Boy, do I hope the judge in charge of the trial on appeal has some choice words for the first judge.
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:11 pm
Bloody awful. My heart goes out to you and the young woman involved.
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:39 pm
I hope that this young woman has hired a new, competant attorney to help her with an appeal. From everything I have read so far, there seems to be a clear case for legal error.
I am not surprised that the prosecutor called these men “boys” - quite a tactic, but easy to rebutt - did her attorney do ANYTHING?
Sounds like someone needs to go back to law school.
December 3rd, 2005 at 3:41 pm
PS: Encourage her to hire one expert witness that has experience in sexual assault victimization that can try and explain to these troglodytes how everyone reacts to trauma differently. I really hope things turn around for her, and that she may have a way to sue their asses off.
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:35 pm
Since she’s a female, I suppose it’s just not possible that she could be lying, is it? No, women never, ever lie. Who cares if men are convicted on false rape accusations? They’re only men, right?
December 3rd, 2005 at 5:45 pm
John, just how often does that happen?
I hope this doesn’t happen to anyone you value.
December 3rd, 2005 at 6:03 pm
Why would anyone lie about something like this, put themselves through the pain of telling so many people they were raped, just to have assholes like John, call them liars, have people come forward to tell embarrassing details about their sex life, their behavior. Why would anyone lie when they know what they’ll have to go through? What would she have to gain? It would make no sense that she lied about this. But logic really doesn’t work for people who support rape culture, because they have too much invested in pretending it doesn’t exist. Instead they blame the victim. Disgusting. I’m so sorry your friend went through this.
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:17 pm
Thanks for bringing our attention to this, Kevin. Got a round up of the blogs on this at Typical
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:44 pm
APPEAL!
And off the record- there are a few more Oregonian testes I€™d like stuffed and mounted on the wall of my new home.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:01 pm
Why would anyone lie about something like this, put themselves through the pain of telling so many people they were raped, just to have assholes like John, call them liars, have people come forward to tell embarrassing details about their sex life, their behavior.
Ah, you’re quickly reduced to name-calling. You’ll notice that I didn’t call her a liar. However, your immediate resort to the high drama of an emotional appeal and then insulting me says a lot about the merits of your position or, more properly, the lack thereof. You got extremely defensive, extremely quickly. Perhaps you don’t believe this tale of alleged “rape” either.
As for “why would anyone lie about something like this,” why would anyone lie about anything? People lie for all sorts of reasons. The court found that this girl lied in her police report. That’s what filing a false police report means–that she lied.
Why would anyone lie when they know what they€™ll have to go through? What would she have to gain? It would make no sense that she lied about this.
That must be why the court determined that she lied, huh?
But logic really doesn€™t work for people who support rape culture, because they have too much invested in pretending it doesn€™t exist. Instead they blame the victim.
First, of what “rape culture” do you speak? The last time I checked, “rape culture” was merely an extremist feminist bugbear, designed to disparage men and propagate a hateful, anti-male agenda throughout the society. There is no “rape culture.” Perhaps you can try some different rhetorical approach, something other than recklessly hurling tired, worn-out, washed-up, and used-up feminist platitudes.
Second, since there is no “rape culture,” I cannot support it, so your further attempt at a personal attack falls flat on its face.
Third, I did not “blame the victim.” For one thing, you’re assuming that there is indeed a “victim” here. You may be right in that assumption, however the victim is probably not who you think it is. Instead, the victims–plural–are the young men who appear to have been falsely accused in this case. I did not blame anyone here.
For another thing, you are assuming that the girl was indeed raped. If she was raped, then she is indeed the victim of a horrible crime and she deserves our compassion based on that fact. If she was not raped, then she seems a rather disturbed individual, to file a false police report, and she deserves our compassion based on that fact.
However, all of this is really beside the point for one simple reason: I did not blame anyone here. I merely questioned her story and had the amazing audacity to bring up the fact that some women do lie about rape. About 25-30% of rape accusations in the USA are false, a pretty substantial number if you ask me. Given those statistics and the fact that the girl at the center of this controversy was convicted of lying in a police report, it’s quite reasonable to be skeptical about her story of allegedly being “raped.”
If you want to talk about people for whom “logic doesn’t work,” then look to yourself.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:30 pm
About 25-30% of rape accusations in the USA are false, a pretty substantial number if you ask me.
Where did you get this statistic? Can you provide a link?
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:57 pm
Here, Kevin, allow me…
I was able to find some links very quickly, courtesy of men’s rights activist Glenn Sacks. A notable article is at http://www.americandaily.com/article/5075
Sacks doesn’t spew any chunks, people. His material is well researched and carefully vetted. This article is sourced on material from places like Purdue University, the US Department of Justice, and the Washington Post.
I know it’s tempting to throw rocks at random-sounding statistics that people put out there, but this is real stuff. Sorry, I know it doesn’t suit the feminist agenda or the notion of female victime infallibility… but the truth is, many rape victims deserve to be considered with skepticism.
December 4th, 2005 at 12:31 am
Billy Boat,
Thanks for posting that link. I was going to look also at the Men’s Activism News Network (MANN), http://www.mensactivism.org, for some statistics, but your source is excellent, so there’s no point in reinventing the wheel. Nevertheless, anyone who wants further data can search for it at MANN. In fact, here’s a direct link to the “False Accusations” section at MANN:
http://www.mensactivism.org/search.pl?topic=false_accusations
Rape is indeed a horrible crime. I know survivors of rape–real rape, not feminist “I have regrets the next morning so I’ll blame the man” rape delusions–and they are indeed suffering from severe trauma. However, false accusations of rape can be as harmful as real rape itself for several reasons. First, a false accusation can ruin an innocent man’s life. Second, false accusations–and an ever-expanding definition of “rape” by feminist fanatics–trivialize real rapes and the trauma that survivors of rapes suffer. Third, the more false accusations there are, the more we will see the “crying wolf” phenomenon, whereby women who truly are raped won’t be believed. Finally, false accusations unnecessarily demonize men as a group and promote misandry at many levels of society.
This case, as unfortunate as it is, gives us reason to believe that people generally, and men particularly, are not tolerating this kind of deceitful behavior so much these days. Feminists who lie that “1 in 4″ college women are raped are now being challenged on those false statistics, and often totally discredited in the process.
Thanks for being a beacon of truth here.
December 4th, 2005 at 1:10 am
actually, false reporting of rape is no higher than for other crimes, and under 10%. Instead of using a biased so-called “men’s rights” group, try to stick to neutral arbiters. The FBI has reported it at 8% for over a decade.
December 4th, 2005 at 1:48 am
Sometimes you need to just shut-up, John, when people are talking about someone you obviously have no empathy for, like a girl who has been put through psychological torture. Do you think your little post helps anyone. It’s the same crap I hear on every rape thread, and it’s usually by males who have the most to gain from keeping things the way they are. John, let me guess you’re a men’s rights activist and you too, Billy Boat. Usually, your type likes to couch their crap in the guise of a reasonable, unemotional debate, but it’s still vile crap, and I don’t have the time or inclination to deal with either of you.
December 4th, 2005 at 1:53 am
John:
I’d like to point out two things that you wrote -
Since she€™s a female, I suppose it€™s just not possible that she could be lying, is it?
You€™ll notice that I didn€™t call her a liar
So you imply that she is lying, which would by definition make her a liar, and then you say that you did NOT call her a liar. This makes sense to you? And then you wrote this:
You may be right in that assumption, however the victim is probably not who you think it is.
So, in your opinion, is she or is she not lying?
What I see is this - the victim’s story did not match the story of the accused. This makes sense, because obviously the three accused aren’t going to come out and say, “Yes, we raped her.” Obviously, if they raped her, they are going to lie about it in court.
But SHE is getting punished because she is (most likely, given rape statistics in the US) telling the truth. How in the world does this make sense to you?!?
And, again, where exactly did you get your “false rape accusations” statistic??
December 4th, 2005 at 1:59 am
my letter to judge peter ackerman:
Peter, Your convicting the victim and disbelief of her version of crime against her being, rape, a serious crime, shows the world the worth of your ability to discern truth. That the men involved would claim she consented is a no brainer.
I find you lacking in the attributes of modern compassion. Allowing her to be further defamed by the trial for her claim of being raped is without a doubt equal to that that was done her by her attackers. Shameless and blind to the
example you are giving to other victims that they will not be believed in a court of law if they find themselves raped or worse. Resign and get a real job.
Thankfully not living anywhere near you, romanwalls
December 4th, 2005 at 2:34 am
peter@peterackerman.com
December 4th, 2005 at 2:35 am
post got cut off, that’s the judges email. gacked from fat lady’s blog.
December 4th, 2005 at 2:37 am
I find it curious that so many in this forum are willing to convict the victim. Fewer than 10% of all rape victims are willing to report the crime because of people like you and judges like the one Kevin saw.
Like most people, this comment thread is willing to convict the victim. I’m a rape survivor who couldn’t go to trial because I knew both of my attackers and the court would never believe me.
When it happens to your child, your wife, your sister, your mother, maybe you’ll learn how horrific rape is. Or maybe you think she _earned_ rape, because she dressed a certain way or hung out with certain people.
In that case, I suggest that you should ask what earns you a case of sodomy. Perhaps when you get it up the ass you’ll learn what it is like to be a woman.
December 4th, 2005 at 6:31 am
The woman does not have a lawyer. The state brings the case. The state prosecuter takes the case to court. It seems as if the prosecuter was leaning towards the ‘boys’ with his statements (as written here). The woman’s only hope is to bring a civil suite where all the additional information would be available.
December 4th, 2005 at 8:01 am
HOW TO TELL A MAN IS LYING: If you’re looking at a he-said/she-said situation where the woman has no clear reason to lie and the man does, the man will frequently explain the woman’s lack of motive as some variant of “She’s crazy.”
If, in these circumstances, he impugns the sanity of a woman with no history of mental problems (1), he’s lying through his teeth.
Convoluted as this scenario reads, it happens frequently enough (not just in rapes, but divorces, work–anywhere a man has acted like a shit in private (2)). And calling the woman “crazy” works quite well for the man, because although John is obviously an asshole, he’s not an unusual asshole. He’s willing to believe, without evidence, that the woman is so “disturbed” as to lie with no motive whatever, over the more logical conclusion that the parties with cause to lie are the ones doing the lying.
This mechanism doesn’t just work with men-vs-women. It works for whoever has the higher perceived status–say employer-vs-employee or cop-vs-prisoner.
But whenever you hear someone say :”So-and-so is lying because she/he is crazy”–look closer.
(1) For example, a perfectly well-behaved law professor testifying about a Supreme Court nominee.
(2) Just to be clear to those who read too fast, I don’t think men are all shits. I think some men are shits–and this tactic works quite well for those guys.
December 4th, 2005 at 10:21 am
Were her attackers white, black, brown or other?
Just wondering. And what was ethnicity was the victim?
December 4th, 2005 at 10:22 am
I’ve come to the conclusion that “Rape is a Requirement”. I place this in quotes because I wish it was the title of a book. If we ever have honest numbers on the frequency of rape and molestation I believe the numbers would show that these crimes are a norm in the good ol’ USA. When a society finds that women and girls are routinely victimized you have to turn the corner on thinking that this is an abbertion, and begin to consider that our culture makes this a requirement: breaking a woman, stealing her soul, robbing her of control of her own self, however you label it, these acts are part of who we are collectively.
Please don’t for a second think that I am condoning this. On the contray, I’m absolutley horrified by this story and so many others like it. My argument is that there is a bigger problem than these boys, this judge, or the next 50 rape cases or stories that we’ll come across. We are a sick society, and have been for longer than my lifetime, and I have no idea what to do about it. I’m not as angry at the injustice done to this one girl, as I am angry at the fact that she’s joined a sisterhood that is practically a rite of passage for American women.
December 4th, 2005 at 10:33 am
I agree with John for the most part, and specifically I am offended and insulted by anashi’s ignorance and naivety. She is clearly in the wrong.
In this particular case, I am willing to believe the girl was actually assaulted. However, false reports are common. I live in the Green Bay area and within the past year three assaults were reported at the University of Green Bay. All three were proven false and the women involved admitted making it up due to depression.
So I tend to think that situations like these can go either way. Maybe she was, maybe she wasn’t. The conclusion: she shouldn’t have been tried for a false report, and they shouldn’t have been tried for rape. I am not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt on either side.
December 4th, 2005 at 10:42 am
She probably shouldn’t have lied to the police about it.
Better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent suffer.
December 4th, 2005 at 10:43 am
Furthermore, John never said she was a liar. His claim was not about the victim, but about people’s willingness to believe women in general solely because they’re women.
And if you don’t believe that men will take women’s words for things, you never saw a man lose his best friend because of something his lady friend has said.
Lastly, people DO accuse people of things all the time “without motive”. As I mentioned in my previous post, depression often leads to this. And again, I am NOT referring to this particular woman - and neither was John - but rape cases in general. Don’t scapegoat John simply because you’re unwilling to compromise or hear the other side of the story.
December 4th, 2005 at 11:28 am
Kevin, please contact me. I’d like to donate something towards whatever fine your friend winds up with. I’d encourage everyone who has posted here to express your justifiable outrage to also donate whatever you can. Let’s do something practical, even if you only afford to give a couple of bucks.
December 4th, 2005 at 11:40 am
This case is shocking because the burden of proof in a criminal case is very heavy - to convict the woman, the judge had to conclude that the evidence against her was so overwhelming that there was no reasonable doubt as to guilt. So, he had to find that she was lying and the accused rapists were telling the truth. It would not be enough to think she was “probably” lying, or that she “probably” consented to sex with the men. Yet, based upon what we’ve been told here and elsewhere, the judge apparently only found that there were inconsistencies in her testimony, as there were with the accused rapists’ testiomony. Having practiced law for 18 years, it is very diffult for me to see how the judge could have found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt under those circumstances.
This is why this is such a troubling case. If the judge was able to conclude that she was lying - beyond a reasonable doubt - simply because of conflicts in testimony, it suggest that he may have been biased in the first instance. And this is the point Kevin and others are raising: that bias against rape victims still persists in our criminal justice system. This particular woman may or may not have been raped, but if a judge can find her guilty so easily, what will happen to truthful victims who turn to a criminal justice system that is biased against them?
I thought we had progressed beyond this.
December 4th, 2005 at 11:50 am
Don’t Get Mad, Get Even: - starting points, links, resources, names and some insights:
One of the interesting tidbits I found researching my piece was this:
December 4th, 2005 at 11:58 am
I tried to post a follow-up comment to explain my position further. Feminists with the “correct” opinions are allowed to pursue ad hominem attacks against me, but I am not allowed to respond to that totally unwarranted invective.
It’s funny. I present a well-reasoned, coherent argument, and “anashi” implies that I am not using “logic.” Then, “anashi” writes, “Sometimes you need to just shut-up, John, when people are talking about someone you obviously have no empathy for, like a girl who has been put through psychological torture,” and subsequently complains that I am “couch[ing my] crap in the guise of a reasonable, unemotional debate.” Yes, such glaring inconsistency is the mark of someone presenting a rational argument!
As for “Melanie,” I did state that I have compassion for this girl, regardless of whether she was raped, for the reasons I presented. Even worse, she goes on to wish harm–prison rape–on those who dare to disagree with the party line. She can post that, but my comment has to be moderated.
(I have not previously mentioned that I am a survivor of boyhood sexual abuse committed by people outside my family, over a dozen years. That’s right, not just once, but many times over 12 years. I didn’t mention it because it’s not relevant to the discussion. I also have friends who were falsely accused of rape. Again, I don’t think that’s relevant here either. If the goal is to turn this thread into an emotion-laden whine-fest, filled with bitterness and accusations and wishing ill upon others, then count me out. I don’t need to prove myself as more of a “victim” than anyone else; I am above that.)
“Sarah” is allowed to engage in blatant anti-male hate speech (she wants “Oregonian testes I€™d like stuffed and mounted on the wall of [her] new home”), but my comment has to be moderated.
You can censor alternative viewpoints on your blog; it’s your right to do that and I strongly support your right to do that. However, you cannot stop the spread of these ideas in the larger society as a whole. I will continue to pursue truth and justice and to destroy feminist hate propaganda against men. The revolution has begun. You can neither contain nor control it.
December 4th, 2005 at 12:11 pm
I am angry at the fact that she€™s joined a sisterhood that is practically a rite of passage for American women.
Bill, thank you for this post. I was raped when I was 9 years old. As a child, I believed that I was the only one to whom this had happened. I am older now (53) and discussion of sexual molestation and rape is more open. At least half of the women I know (all ages) have admitted that they were raped or sexually molested - none ever filed charges. Sexual assault against women is far more common than we are willing to admit.
December 4th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
“However, you cannot stop the spread of these ideas in the larger society as a whole. I will continue to pursue truth and justice and to destroy feminist hate propaganda against men. The revolution has begun. You can neither contain nor control it.”
Lol, wow, I’m shaking in my boots. The only hate I see is from you. It’s obvious you hate being confronted by the fact that men do rape and that they always get off easy. These ideas that are spreading through society, as you put it, are these the sames ones that say it’s alright to blame the victim, that women are always liars, that they deserve what they get, that men are never responsible for their actions. If so, you’ve succeeded. Bravo.
December 4th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
I was sufficiently upset at the proceedings that, in the hallway outside the courtroom, I told the prosecutor and lead detective that they were €œmiserable pricks€ and €œa disgrace to their profession.€)
I agree with your assessment. Those pieces of dumpster crust should be disbarred.
And I do find it telling that for all of the worries about “innocent until proven guilty” when it comes to the two percent of falsely accused men don’t extend to women.
And there is no typical way anyone acts after any trauma. Jeez.
December 4th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
I appreciate all the suggestions, ideas and offers, folks. I don’t appreciate the bandying about of statistics that only tell part of the story.
If, for example, only 10% of rape victims report their rapes and another 2% or 12% or whatever of the reported rapes are false reports, what percentage of all rapes that occur vs. false reports do we get? Perspective like that is crucial.
Second, I don’t blame Mr. Napoli for the outcome. After speaking with him a couple of times, I believe he’s pretty competent as an attorney. Could another lawyer do better? I can’t say that. Maybe. But even then I wouldn’t rate Napoli as deficient.
I had a phone call from a sibling of the victim today. At this point in the proceedings, they’re just trying to recharge and to give the young woman respite from all of it for a few days. They’re concerned that the story will grow so large that the media may try to contact the woman, and they feel this would jangle her more than the trial already has.
So for now, I’d just ask that we let the story go for a bit. The family is appreciative of the supportiveness most of you have shown. Once they determine the next step ahead, the word will be passed through me.
That doesn’t mean to quench the discussion of rape victims and how they’re treated, by courts or society in general. I feel that’s a very important discussion to continue. Especially if it leads to solutions to make it better, or to make rape less frequent.
December 4th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
What are the ages of the 3 men? If they are 21 or over then it’s statuatory rape under Oregon law. And it doesn’t matter then if the prosecuter wants to prosecute or not. He has to since they 3 men have admitted that they did have sex with the girl.
December 4th, 2005 at 5:45 pm
I’m not gonna get in on the feminist-masculinist (misandrist-misogynist) drama going on here, I find it tiresome, but something about the law has piqued my curiosity.
To be found guilty of a crime the crime must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and it seems that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the men committed this crime, so the men were acquitted and the girl was found guilty of falsely accusing the men. This is where I start becoming confused.
Falsely accusing someone of a crime is a crime and therefore must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, but it seems that, as with the men, there was pleny of reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the girl. So, why was she convicted?
If the girl had not been convicted this case would have disappeared and no more would be heard of it, but now there will be an appeal (where I believe that the girls conviction will be thrown out) and the appeal will resonate through the media and the names of the men will be dragged through the mud once again, but this time with a lot of cameras watching. There is potential for some form of justice to be served.
December 4th, 2005 at 6:22 pm
Wow. I’ve read a few threads about this issue and found unbelievable shrillness towards anyone who MIGHT think that maybe somehow possibly a woman would make a false rape charge. Why? Are women flawless? It’s not about this case, there seem to not be enough details to reach any conclusion. But even the IDEA that the woman could have done this can not be spoken. Wow. And from liberals no less. I would expect this from right wing nuts.
A woman accused 2 Dallas Cowboys of raping her. Later she admitted it was consensual. In the 80’s here in Minnesota 3 basketball players were accused of raping a Wisconsin woman. They were found not guilty, but of course their names were mud and so were their futures…but the womans is still secret. Is that fair? Ever hear of Gary Dotson? Years in jail for a rape that he didn’t commit…in fact NO ONE committed, the woman….can I even think it…made up the accusation! His life ruined, as far as I know nothing happened to her. That sends a great message.
And don’t go off on this I hate women and am part of the “rape culture”….I’ve had girlfiends who were rape victims and think rapists should be killed outright….IF they did it.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
I think it is totally bleeped up that some of the folks here are trying to turn this into an abstract discussion, when Kevin obviously knows the young woman and believes her version of the story. Talk about mindless insensitivity - not every goddamn place on the ‘net needs to be turned into a forum for an abstract debate about statistics and the virtues and drawbacks of feminism, etc. Wake up and smell the coffee folks - take it elsewhere!
December 4th, 2005 at 9:03 pm
I don’t for a minute believe that false reports don’t occur, slumpyb. I think it’s such a minor problem that it rarely deserves prosecution when it does. The larger crime is all the rapes that occur and the voices silenced by the fear of reporting those real rapes, because of society’s inconsistent and suspicious response to it.
I remember it was controversial when some cities and states took the unusual step of making it mandatory that when police were called on a domestic violence complaint, that one party was going to spend the night in jail. While it could create an occasional injustice, the outcome was a marked reduction in domestic violence wherever the approach was tried.
And it seems to me that’s what’s missing from the discussion here. Setting aside this specific case, the great problems are rapes occurring and victims afraid to report them. The minor problem is false reports.
It would behoove us as an advanced society to put our energy to the resolution of the big problems first. And perhaps that would even have the side effect of resolving the secondary problem. If not, we could attack that then.
As someone noted, should someone resort to a false report, it’s more likely the person needs therapy, not a jail cell. Considering how many violent people remain unjailed, it seems a waste of an overtaxed justice system pursuing someone deeply troubled, who is a danger to herself more than to others.
And before anyone suggests I’m proposing that false reporters would then experience no consequences, I’d firmly disagree. Guilt, shame, ridicule by others… consequences like these would continue to exist and are more appropriate consequences that better fit the crime.
December 4th, 2005 at 9:30 pm
The point isn’t really whether or not she’s telling the truth. Its whether there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she’s lying?
Perhaps there was not evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the men she is accusing raped her. But not quilty does not mean innocent.
The reason this verdict is so odius is because she was convicted on such shoddy evidence. We don’t know if she’s quilty or not. How will any women who is raped know that she won’t suffer the same fate if she reports her crime?
December 4th, 2005 at 10:53 pm
I can confirm John´s comments on the very high amount of false rape accusations (I´d put the figure far higher) although I´m not sure what proportion go as far as naming specific people. False accusations are usually more vague and don´t name names. The majority are not spiteful but just as an excuse for tardiness or getting pregnant or to avoid responsibility for bad sex. Quite often the girl confessess which didn´t happen here.
To be accurate the woman here has been found guilty and the men are the victims of the crime. I certainly don´t think the courts get it right every time but íts offensive to continue to call the men rapists after this result.
What I find odd about this, and isn´t explained by Kevin or by the article, is why the case was brought. As noted it´s very rare to bring a case against someone suspected of a false accusation (a common occurance). Rarer still to prove the case. When a crime is only brought rarely it is usually only the very worst examples, the most obviously guilty or the worst examples of the crime that are brought. The best cases for the prosecution. It´s such a politically charged charge to bring that only the bravest prosecutor would bring it — or perhaps under the very worst conditions of criminal activity. By comparison it´s easy to falsely convict some man of rape — happens all the time. People want men to be rapists. They don´t want women to be called false accusers. Even if the police were sure she lied that alone wouldn´t explain their decision to bring a charge. So why did they?
So that is an an unexplained mystery. It´s as if there were two completely separate cases — the one Kevin reports and the one in the article. It´s a mystery but I have no way to know what really happened.
At any rate false accusation of rape is a terrible crime. Certainly worse than rape itself. Sadly the punishments are completely out of proportion. Seven years for rape. 30 days for the false accusation (three counts).
December 4th, 2005 at 11:03 pm
“At any rate false accusation of rape is a terrible crime. Certainly worse than rape itself.”
Being accused of rape is WORSE THAN RAPE? What the crap?!?!! You’re saying that being accused of something you didn’t do is worse than being forced to have unwanted sex. Worse than someone forcing their penis into your body when your body doesn’t want it and won’t accommodate it, causing pain, bruising, tearing. Worse than the humiliation, the anguish, the life-changing trauma, the shell shock. Worse than the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy or an uncurable disease. That’s sick.
December 4th, 2005 at 11:05 pm
This is an outrage! I feel so sad for that girl. Is there any chance of retrial? “Boys will be boys”, huh? Yes, it sounds like “boys” reigned supreme in this case. On the other hand, young girls shouldn’t falsely accuse men of rape because they want to be vindictive; when they do they ruin the credibility of other young girls who really have been raped. I thought this kind of thing only continued to happen in the South. It’s a pity that it’s happening all over the country.
December 4th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
“At any rate false accusation of rape is a terrible crime. Certainly worse than rape itself.”
Raise your hand if you’ve been raped. David? No? Ever performed a sexual act that you didn’t want to because you were afraid you would be physically harmed if you didn’t? Trust me, it’s bad. Worse than you can imagine. Your comparison is insulting.
December 5th, 2005 at 12:01 am
I don’t condone David’s claim that being raped is not as bad as being falsely accused of rape.
Maybe his point was that someone accused of rape, once branded a rapist by the media, will never again be able to get a job, a loan, a house, a family, etc. Whereas rape victims, in the vast majority of cases, go on to live completely normal lives anonymously.
But if that WAS his point, he chose some very poor words to make it.
December 5th, 2005 at 12:54 am
Lol, wow, I€™m shaking in my boots. The only hate I see is from you. It€™s obvious you hate being confronted by the fact that men do rape and that they always get off easy. These ideas that are spreading through society, as you put it, are these the sames ones that say it€™s alright to blame the victim, that women are always liars, that they deserve what they get, that men are never responsible for their actions. If so, you€™ve succeeded. Bravo.
As far as shaking in your boots goes, you should be shaking in your boots because your days of special treatment are fast coming to an end.
Men do rape and they always get off easy, huh? Uhm, oh…OK. Where did any of us say “it’s alright to blame the victim?” Where? Also, remember, we’re talking about an alleged “victim” here. The accused men have not been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s the standard that you are all demanding for the “victim” who was convicted of lying, so it’s the standard that applies to those men, too. I thought your kind supported “equality.” Thanks for showing again that feminism = female supremacist fascism.
Where did any of us say “women are always liars”? Where did any of us say “[women (presumably as liars) deserve what they get”? Where did any of us say “men are never responsible for their actions”?
Oh, sorry. Silly me! I forgot that straw men are a staple of feminist “argument.”
December 5th, 2005 at 1:29 am
€œAt any rate false accusation of rape is a terrible crime. Certainly worse than rape itself.€
Being accused of rape is WORSE THAN RAPE? What the crap?!?!!
“What the crap?” That must be one of those clever rhetorical statements they teach you in Wymyn’s Studies 101, right? It’s oh, so persuasive!
You€™re saying that being accused of something you didn€™t do is worse than being forced to have unwanted sex. Worse than someone forcing their penis into your body when your body doesn€™t want it and won€™t accommodate it, causing pain, bruising, tearing. Worse than the humiliation, the anguish, the life-changing trauma, the shell shock. Worse than the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy or an uncurable disease. That€™s sick.
Get a grip. If we can look beyond your hysterical shrieking, we can see at least two things. For one thing, the feminist definition of “rape” is expanding to the point where it is nearly meaningless. Who did that? Yep, you can blame your fellow feminists for that.
For another thing, a false accusation of rape can lead to a false conviction of rape. That can lead to such minor consequences as:
–multiple experiences of prison rape–a homosexual rape that is almost invariably brutally violent;
–a felony criminal record;
–a lengthy prison term and deprivation of liberty for many years;
–the requirement to register as a “sex offender” for life;
and so on.
So, yes, while a false accusation of rape is not necessarily worse than rape, it certainly can be. I’m really getting tired of all these pampered, privileged North American women complaining about “how awful it all is,” assuming that men do not suffer any problems whatsoever, and forgetting that they, as a group, are the most privileged human beings ever to live on this planet.
Sometimes I have a hard time believing what I’m reading here. A girl is convicted of lying about an accusation of rape. In a mindless, knee-jerk reaction, feminists–along with their politically-correctly brainwashed male lackeys–leap to the girl’s defense and find no problem whatsoever in the fact that she was convicted of lying. She’s a female, a supposedly morally superior being, so she is incapable of lying, right?
December 5th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Raise your hand if you´ve ever been falsely accused of rape. Siren? Stacy? No?
I guess I am not surprised at the way some women dismiss this crime as nothing. Consider for a moment the outrage that Kevin feels because in his view this women has been falsely convicted of a misdemeanor and faces a fine. How upset would he be if she was facing seven years in jail and a record of being a sex offender?
December 5th, 2005 at 3:55 pm
Kevin, I got here via Feministing. I’m so sorry this happened to your friend.
I recently found this web site; it might have some useful stuff ….. I hope her case is appealable.
http://www.justicewomen.com/handbook/index.html
One more thing… Anyone that is quoting Glenn Sacks (Billy Boat, John) regarding rape or domestic violence stats is already coming from a place assuming male privilege and provides bogus stats to fit that assumption. Glenn Sacks has been debunked a zillion times by Trish Wilson, Elizabeth Kates, and many other brilliant women. Those kind of guys are such a bore! …Yawn!
So take your sad selves home already fellas. I think that white men’s rights are already pretty well protected; as this case clearly indicates.
December 5th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
In a mindless, knee-jerk reaction, feminists€“along with their politically-correctly brainwashed male lackeys€“leap to the girl€™s defense and find no problem whatsoever in the fact that she was convicted of lying. She€™s a female, a supposedly morally superior being, so she is incapable of lying, right?
Were you not paying attention? The person who wrote the blog post above knows the girl involved in this trial. He believes her version of events and casts doubt on the judge’s conclusion. He is hardly am ideological lackey.
Also the high numbers often cited about false accusations include cases were the men were found not guilty (for a lack of evidence, lack of jury sympathy for the alleged victim not necessarily because it was untrue), attackers were misidentified by an actual victim of a crime (innocent men went to jail), and malicious false reports of rape. Malicious false reporting is a far smaller percentage than the first two categories with cases like Dotson’s being rare indeed. People, usually anti-feminist men, with politcal points to score lump all of those incidents together with malicious false reports. (Just like feminists with politcal points to score cite the 2% false report stat from Brownmiller instead of the 9% false report stat from the DOJ)
The categoriziation of rapes as probably false is sometimes done using the McDowell questionaire. The questionaire that assigns points to women based on a series of criteria including whether they ask for medical care or for a female officer to be present or if they claim to know their attacker. The more points the more likely she is lying. That scale of measurement makes it very easy to classify a women as unreliable. Can you see why this system is no longer used by the Armed Forces?
Can somebody tell me what constitutes real rape? If you know the person it cannot be real rape? If you were not beaten to a bloody pulp it cannot be real rape? North American women are supposed to be grateful because even if your rights are violated here at least you do not have to worry about those pesky honor killings? It is a preposterous position to take that there is some standard that your assualt must be held to when the only standard I can see is consent.
December 5th, 2005 at 5:05 pm
One more thing€ Anyone that is quoting Glenn Sacks (Billy Boat, John) regarding rape or domestic violence stats is already coming from a place assuming male privilege and provides bogus stats to fit that assumption. Glenn Sacks has been debunked a zillion times by Trish Wilson, Elizabeth Kates, and many other brilliant women. Those kind of guys are such a bore! €Yawn!
LOL
That’s so funny.
…a zillion times…
Yep, that sound like some of Trish’s stats.
December 5th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
Ah, yes. The old “being accused of murder is just as bad as being murdered” because, well, after you’re dead, you don’t have to worry about that stain on your reputation. And there is no greater shame or humiliation than that in your life.
It’s a little known fact that people accused of any crime have “accused criminal” badges that they have to hang around their necks at all times. It is a little known fact that everyone has a duty to report each and every accusation ever made about them–going back to when you were in preschool. So make sure that you inform everyone of the shame you feel for being wrongly accused of biting Timmy behind the jungle gym.
And I am absolutely aware of the damages that can be done when suspects are splashed about in the media when they are exonerated of any wrongdoing–because (in local television reports especially) the suspicion of commiting a heinous crime is enough for you to be harrassed and abused for months or years in the court of public opinion.
But as horrible as that may or may not be, those wrongly accused, outside of very limited cases, can return to anonymity vis-a-vis the causes of their accusation either through time or geography. The same cannot be said of the victim of any crime.
Yes, it is a horrible thing that people get wrongly convicted–no matter what it is that they are convicted of.
But the men in this case weren’t convicted of anything, wrongly or not–let alone tried, or their names dropped into the court of public opinion. They remain free of any long-term fetters, legal or public humiliation-related. So the question here is…what was the point of this exercise?
Maybe John and DavidByron are right, and the long oppressed WASP-Male is finally breaking free of that horrible time when he was so victimized, marginalized, and powerless. Maybe He will once again be able to swing his mightly shlong of righteousness as it longs to be swunged. No longer will He suffer the shame of insignificance! No longer will He be tortured for his overwhelming grip on the neck of the dreaded femme! No longer will it be denied that “No!” means “Yes!”
Viva la Revolucion!!?
December 5th, 2005 at 6:02 pm
Whoh! Sombody call Glen Sacks! Poor Michael Plentyhorse has been charged with a sex crime, but I’m sure he’d agree the dummy was lying because she didn’t put up much of a fight …
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051115/NEWS/51115008/1004/Life
December 5th, 2005 at 9:22 pm
I think it€™s such a minor problem that it rarely deserves prosecution when it does.
Please trust me that I rarely wish ill on anyone Kevin, but I hope you are falsely accused of rape.
I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment
I could be you
Yes, I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
You’d know what a drag it is
To see you
December 5th, 2005 at 10:16 pm
Jerky, lets do the numbers:
According to Multnomah country OR data, “false accusations” for sexual assault run about 1.6%
I won’t buy some arshole whinerman pseudo research, but lets just say that figure is off by a factor of five to ten, and put it at 10%.
NOW, there are plenty of reports that legally-defined rape is only reported 10% of the time. These are from therapist and rape-crisis center data. Even if that is inflated somewhat, lets say 25% of actual rapes are reported.
SOOO out of 1,000 ACTUAL rapes my data says that there are ONLY 100 reports, of which only ONE OR TWO ARE FALSE!
Using “tweaked” numbers to satify those who prefer which hunter spew to good solid data collection we get
1,000 rapes
250 reports
25 false reports
IN OTHER WORDS the “false report” problem is A MYTH!
December 5th, 2005 at 10:18 pm
Jerky, lets do the numbers:
According to Multnomah country OR data, “false accusations” for sexual assault run about 1.6%
I won’t buy some arshole whinerman pseudo research, but lets just say that figure is off by a factor of five to ten, and put it at 10%.
NOW, there are plenty of reports that legally-defined rape is only reported 10% of the time. These are from therapist and rape-crisis center data. Even if that is inflated somewhat, lets say 25% of actual rapes are reported.
SOOO out of 1,000 ACTUAL rapes my data says that there are ONLY 100 reports, of which only ONE OR TWO ARE FALSE!
Using “tweaked” numbers to satify those who prefer which hunter spew to good solid data collection we get
1,000 rapes
250 reports
25 false reports
IN OTHER WORDS the “false report” problem is A MYTH! Yes, there are women who are vindictive and women who are coerced by parents, blackmail, or threats to custody of their children who will report rape falsely BUT this is a SMALL PROBLEM that is covered by the presumption of innocence when compared to the RAPE PROBLEM!
Clue train leaving the station dude … too bad Mr. Plentyhorse made off with your perfect woman already.
December 5th, 2005 at 10:59 pm
fade Says:
December 4th, 2005 at 10:42 am
She probably shouldn€™t have lied to the police about it.
Better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent suffer.
Absolutely! I mean, that one innocent guy might get raped in prison.
December 5th, 2005 at 11:42 pm
John, maybe I can clarify why you’ve ticked so many people off. Your original statement: Since she€™s a female, I suppose it€™s just not possible that she could be lying, is it? No, women never, ever lie. Who cares if men are convicted on false rape accusations? They€™re only men, right?
Let’s break it down, cooly and rationally. By bolding the word “lying,” in the context you placed it, your statement translates a little more like this: “Women lie about rape. Feminists think men are worthless. ” It also has a sarcastic and slightly demeaning tone. Perhaps that was not your intention, but that is how it came off. As previously mentioned, the FBI stats on false rape claims sit at 8%, and it’s also been documented numerous times that most rapes are not reported, your 8% is quite a giant number of false accusations… but barely a drop in the bucket to the number of women being raped. Tell you what. You make the other 92% go away, and I’ll focus all my juice on that 8%. Until then, how’s about we stop giving even half of the attention to less than 10% of the problem?
Moving on:
I present a well-reasoned, coherent argument
Your initial statement wasn’t particularly well-reasoned. I’m not neccessarily asking for responses here, but you’re probably posting to a group of women with a stunningly low number of NON rape histories. In fact, rape, molestation, and general sexual abuse of women has pretty much become a right of passage, as previously stated by Bill. I know a lot of women, and I’ve yet to meet one that hasn’t been raped as a woman, or molested as a child. Strangely enough, all of the perpetrators were male. Does this mean all men are rapists? Absolutely not. It does, however, clearly demonstrate another statistic. Almost all rapists are men. There’s no men’s right’s advocacy group that can deny that. If they’re worried about their brethren being falsely accused, why don’t they un-muddy the waters by stopping the REAL rapes, then we’ll get a really GOOD estimation of false reports…
I don€™t need to prove myself as more of a €œvictim€ than anyone else; I am above that.
Apparently you aren’t, or you wouldn’t have needed to validate your argument by joining the victim’s club. I’m not trying to marginalize your situation. Rape is a horrible, disgusting, and spirit-crushing crime. It can also be discussed without using our own personal tragedies to lend validation to an unpopular argument because you want to be right. The effect of your statement there is to say “See, my opinion is valid because I have personal experience.” Again, I’d be willing to bet that most of the women here have had a similar experience. It doesn’t make your point any more or less valid, it just makes you look like you’re attempting to obfuscate the central issue.
€œSarah€ is allowed to engage in blatant anti-male hate speech (she wants €œOregonian testes I€™d like stuffed and mounted on the wall of [her] new home€), but my comment has to be moderated.
I agree with you. As a feminist, I’m getting really tired of being called a man-hater. I think Sarah spoke from a place of anger, but it wasn’t anger directed at you, John. It was a woman’s anger at being victimized, directed at the instrument of her victimization, in this case, the male patriarchy of the state of Oregon. Sarah, if you’re reading this, I’m sorry if you got hurt like this too. Please don’t hate them all, there are some really good ones out there.
John, it is the most common thing I ever see in these types of threads, an anti-feminist man claiming he’s being censored. You can’t be censored when your viewpoint is the one on television screens and printed in magazines (and enforced in courtrooms). Explaining male priveledge to a man is pretty pointless. How do you make someone understand that the society they’ve grown up in has programmed by a society that defines manhood on sexual prowess, making women objects to be attained no matter what the cost? Yes, it’s very PC to appease the feminists… verbally. Society pays lip-service to the concept of equalizing the genders. We smile pretty when being watched, but sneer behind our hands. You know what we get for Feminism 2005? Dirty talk on “The View.”
Lastly: I will continue to pursue truth and justice and to destroy feminist hate propaganda against men. The revolution has begun. You can neither contain nor control it.
John, you’ve pretty much chalked feminism up to man-hating… and yet you close with something that is flagrantly woman-hating (or at least, feminist woman-hating). Do you know what the goals of feminist are? I was taught feminism seeks to equalize the genders. I personally believe the absurdities society demands of men are unfair, and unrealistic. As a feminist, I respect myself, women, AND men…. and I expect them to respect themselves, myself, and other people of both genders. I don’t want a castrated, emasculated man, I just want men to realize that they don’t own women, and are not entitled to what we can provide. Why do you interpret the feminist hate of rapists to be a hate of men? We don’t hate all men. We hate the bastards, the rapist, the abusers. And y’know what? They SHOULD be hated. YOU should hate them. They’re rapists. Violent criminals. Sometimes murderers. Is there anything about them to NOT hate?
There is a way to post a dissenting opinion, but insinuating through grammatical wit that a possible rape victim is actually just a lying woman isn’t the way to do it… unless you want a hundred people to tell you you’re a git.
December 5th, 2005 at 11:57 pm
I understand that stats regarding deliberately false charges are unclear, and that many people may not see Ampersand and Trish Wilson as unbiased sources, but why exactly should anyone looking for an unbiased source look to Glenn Sacks over say, an Oregon newspaper? And then there’s the little point of logic that there is a difference between a false charge and a criminally false charge. Even if the accuser is wrong, that doesn’t mean he/she is deliberately lying - misidentification isn’t criminal.
“For one thing, the feminist definition of “rape” is expanding to the point where it is nearly meaningless.”
Yes, all those silly rules about consent have made the definition of rape “meaningless” - we should just change it back to being about taking something from the man who owns the woman (or girl).
“Consider for a moment the outrage that Kevin feels because in his view this women has been falsely convicted of a misdemeanor and faces a fine. How upset would he be if she was facing seven years in jail and a record of being a sex offender?”
Umm, well, I’d imagine that would depend on if she was simpy accused or if she had actually be convicted (as she was). Are people really having a hard time understanding the difference between the two? (It’s not the feminists who are screaming for a conviction this time - and while we may generally bitch about how hard rape is to prove, that doesn’t mean we believe every accused rapist should go to jail.)
“Please trust me that I rarely wish ill on anyone Kevin, but I hope you are falsely accused of rape.”
Yeah, I really trust you on that one.
“In a mindless, knee-jerk reaction, feminists–along with their politically-correctly brainwashed male lackeys–leap to the girl’s defense and find no problem whatsoever in the fact that she was convicted of lying”
Ouch, you got us, we just completely ignored the eyewitness account above and newspaper article that stated the judge based his decision largely upon the apparent lack of trauma shown by the accuser.
December 6th, 2005 at 7:10 am
understand that stats regarding deliberately false charges are unclear, and that many people may not see Ampersand and Trish Wilson as unbiased sources, but why exactly should anyone looking for an unbiased source look to Glenn Sacks over say, an Oregon newspaper?
What is your experience with Glenn Sacks? What is your experience with the Oregonian, or with newspapers in general? Have you visited Glenn Sacks site? Have you read his papers? What do you think of them? What part of Glenn Sacks biography or resume do you take issue with?
Glenn Sacks by definition is biased. He’s an activist for men’s rights.
Personally, I believe that everyone is biased, and that no one can be objective. That’s just the lesson of 20th century physics, art, and journalism. It does not mean that people cannot be experts, or that people cannot be accurate. It means you need to get your information from more than one source, and determine the biases and inaccuracies to the best you can, for yourself, and draw your own conclusions.
But if you acknowlege that Ampersand and Trish Wilson are biased, your question may become, how will you balance for yourself the material that Ampersand and Trish Wilson and Amanda Marcotte are telling you?
My suggestion: read Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrell, read about their backgrounds, and decide for yourself. Extra credit, when you are done, please do issue a blog post, or posts here and at Trish Wilson and Ampersand’s and Amanda Marcotte’s site detailing your findings.
I really don’t wish harm on most people. Well apart from rich, access seeking, hypocritical journalists, hypocritical politicians, and most of the Bush Administration. Okay, I do wish harm on lots of people. But in this case, since Kevin doesn’t believe that false accusations are a big deal, or that their impact is great enough for him to worry about, about all I am wishing for is that he get the opportunity to put his money where his mouth is, and suggesting that in lieu of that, he may wish to put some understanding into the many testimonials from men that have been where he has been fortunate enough to avoid.
December 6th, 2005 at 9:17 am
I just found out about this case on msnbc.com. While I barely know enough about it to give an opinion, I thought you might find this link useful / interesting for he debate.
http://www.menweb.org/throop/falsereport/kanin.html
It is a report on the percentage of false rape allegations and is is supposed to be a study done by a researcher at Purdue University. The results are shocking ( 41% false).
December 6th, 2005 at 9:20 am
Azzy: Amen. Thanks for adding a level-headed voice to the argument.
December 6th, 2005 at 9:27 am
Nobody really knows what happened except the 17-year old young woman the the 3 men. However, what most of us *should* be able to agree with is that it appears that the judge’s evidence that she lied is doesn’t seem to be concrete enough to support the charge that she lied. A lot of rape cases are exactly like this one– purely he said/she said– and the burden on the victim to prove the case is huge and difficult. That’s why so many rapes go underreported, women have so much to lose, the whole case is built on their repeated testimony, their every action, and people make assumptions about them regardless of whether or not the man is convicted.
I’ve known quite a few women who have been raped and I don’t know a single one who reported it. Women know the odds were stacked against them if they make a formal complaint– they were in the guys room, they were drinking, etc. The majority of women know their attackers, which only adds to the ugliness of the situation– they’ve been violated and betrayed in addition to living a nightmare. Which is why when a woman does come forward it’s hard for most decent women to imagine that she’s lying– dealing with rape is hard enough, having to deal with it so publicly is a horrible ordeal, so we think it must have happened. Clearly we’re the kind of women who would never lie about it because we can’t even imagine why anyone else would. We’re not the ones you’re after. We recognize that lying about rape is awful and unforgivable and it ultimately hurts real rape victims. Why is that so hard to understand?
December 6th, 2005 at 9:30 am
One more thing. It says a lot about what kind of man you are if you read a case like this and your first impulse is to use it to bash feminists. Suddenly the discussion isn’t about the reality of rape, the difficulty of proving rape, it is about men like John, men who consider themselves victims of some feminist anti-male conspiracy.
I can’t help but wonder, if you feel that women are all manhating feminists who are out to get you do you think it might have something to do with your attitude? Why don’t you try getting some therapy, deal with your blanket anger towards women who stand up for themselves, it couldn’t hurt.
December 6th, 2005 at 9:44 am
Kevin,
I don€™t for a minute believe that false reports don€™t occur, slumpyb. I think it€™s such a minor problem that it rarely deserves prosecution when it does.
And before anyone suggests I€™m proposing that false reporters would then experience no consequences, I€™d firmly disagree. Guilt, shame, ridicule by others€ consequences like these would continue to exist and are more appropriate consequences that better fit the crime.
Since you don’t feel that false allegations are important enough to worry about, and since you do have such a nice blog, and are considered responsible and authoritative by many, I would urge you to take on the same assignment I asked Jenny to undertake.
I encourage you to read Sacks and Farrell, and report to your readers what you find. And to contrast that with what you have learned from Wilson, and Ampersand and Marcotte, especially with regards to how Sacks treats them, and how they treat Sacks.
December 6th, 2005 at 11:06 am
While doing research, I came up with this link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6796146/
It seems that Nike was financially hurt by the Kobe Bryant rape incident. Nike is based in, yup, Beaverton, Oregon.
December 6th, 2005 at 11:45 am
Aside from the statistics cited above showing that women lie about rape charges in as few as 1.6% of reports, there is a simple, logical reason why assuming that women will lie about rape just doesn’t make sense.
Look at what happens to a woman who accuses a man of raping her. Her name is dragged through the mud, her sexual history is questioned, she is slandered with all sorts of vile names by the defendant’s supporters, lawyers, and by men of society at large. She is told that it was her fault, that she shouldn’t have been doing whatever she was doing when her attacker raped her. She is accused of making it all up, of lying to be vengeful or (if the rapist is rich, such as Kobe Bryant) of seeking money. She faces long odds of getting a conviction; in Oregon, apparently 10% of reported rapes result in a conviction. Rape being one of the most underreported crimes there is, the real numbers are surely much higher.
She receives all kinds of “advice” from people which can be summed up as “don’t have a social life, don’t ever drink, don’t go out of your house, and if you still get raped, it’s still your fault”. Her family and friends may well abandon her, or even turn against her. Her religious community may well turn their backs on her, as well.
Given all of this, what sort of logical reason would there be for women to lie about being raped? The 1.6% who apparently do, I would surmise, are probably mentally ill; otherwise, anyone sane would realize that accusing a man of rape is extremely difficult and has all kinds of social and psychological penalties, whether he is convicted or not. The man accused, or even convicted, of rape has many allies in society, many people trying to excuse what he did, or blame it all on the woman. Look at how many people today still think Desiree Washington was just a golddigger, even after Mike Tyson was, in fact, convicted.
Quite simply, sane people do not lie if there is no benefit to them in doing so. And the simple fact is, lying about rape has no benefit for women. So, given these facts…who would benefit from lying about rape? If it’s not women, then who?
December 6th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
€œAt any rate false accusation of rape is a terrible crime. Certainly worse than rape itself.€
Being accused of rape is WORSE THAN RAPE? What the crap?!?!!
€œWhat the crap?€ That must be one of those clever rhetorical statements they teach you in Wymyn€™s Studies 101, right? It€™s oh, so persuasive!
Nope, just an unvarnished expression of shock at the unbelievably stupid thing you wrote. Congrats, I think your post might be the most asinine thing I’ve seen online all year.
I thought about responding to the rest of your reply, but I decided that you just aren’t worth it. You’re obviously just a hysterical, woman-hating mascinazi asshole, mindlessly riding along with the feminist backlash. Get a life.
December 6th, 2005 at 12:19 pm
Thanks Ed for supplying the link to the academic study on false accusations. The only comment I would like to make is that the sample size is 109 cases. Although there are several schools of thought on the issue of sample size, it is widely believed that the smaller the sample size, the more flawed the results. If you consider how many rapes happen nationwide, 109 may be too small of a sample to provide an accurate statistic.
December 6th, 2005 at 9:16 pm
john is a sick fuck. just like the guys who did this.
December 6th, 2005 at 10:23 pm
Jerry,
I don’t need to spend my already too limited time to research who’s considered authoritative on rape and rape accusations. I’m already familiar with much of the tiresome arguments and cannot state the actual amount of false reports with any authority.
My concern is first and foremost the victim of these rapes. I know her and I believe her and would unless she recants.
Though I suspect the problem is too limited to make a strong case for prosecutions of the false reporters, I do not mean to suggest that such prosecutions NEVER be made.
Unless the stats display which false reports are driven by vindictiveness out of a pure choice to be mean, which are vengeance for other previous acts of abuse and which are driven by deep emotional troubles, I lean towards therapy for the false reporter. In short, I presume that the latter two choices are the most probable reasons for the false reports and both would be better addressed by therapy.
That a woman, not in need of mental health care, would choose to convict a bed partner of such a crime when no abuse has occurred raises the obvious question of motivation. Why would a healthy woman do that?
That’s what I see as truly rare. And in those rare cases, I think prosecution is just.
But some here seem to be on a crusade to right the wrongs they are most familiar with, not to weigh the levels of harm that occur with sex used as a weapon.
To be sure, there are casualties on both side of the divide, though I maintain that far more women are harmed by far than are men. And most men never have to live fearing rape unless they’re incarcerated while most women in this society have to contemplate it and take precautions in hopes of avoiding it. That alone - that necessary sense of guardedness - is such a burden that it suggests they deserve extra consideration.
And in the case of this young woman, were you in my shoes, I’m reasonably confident you’d support her version as the truth, just from knowing her. And I especially doubt she’d put guys in such jeopardy out of meanness or any other unjust motivation.
In the small chance that she’s not being truthful the only other rationale would be mental instability and how would jailing her help anyone or protect anyone? If she considers herself a victim, she’d consider herself a bigger victim thereafter, so such a course would aid no-one, not the men, not her, not society.
As to the wishes made about things happening to me, I can only add that I have experienced many trials and tribulations in my life. You could expect me to be more sympathetic to men from some of them and towards women from some of them. I think it’s the breadth of that experience that grants me the choice of getting bitter about the pains and injustices, or gaining wisdom from the same. I like to think I’ve gained more enlightenment sufficient to pursue more just solutions. But I could be wrong.
I don’t think I’m wrong in calling this specific prosecution both unjust and useless.
December 6th, 2005 at 10:46 pm
Thanks for your response (since the thread is pretty darn old by now.)
Some of us are just lesser beings, and in my own very personal experience, I found there was much I could laugh about until my children were taken away from me due to false allegations. That, and my mother dying without her being able to visit with the kids for more than two years turned my path towards wisdom into bitterness. Again, I am just a lesser being than you.
I hope you never experience anything like that, and I hope you are right about your friend, and that she heals as well.
December 7th, 2005 at 3:02 am
Jerry, post-divorce, I dealt with numerous issues because of a possessive and paranoid ex. Though the courts never blocked me directly, the interruptions in visitations - which I lacked the funds to dispute in court - effectively cut off the kids from me and my family.
I also was subject to a ‘false recovered memory’ that, while not prosecuted, has caused total estrangement with one kid for nine years. The combination of events drove me deep into depression while thoughts of suicide danced in my head.
Somehow, I survived. The scars to all parties remain visible.
You aren’t a lesser being at all. You are still processing your pain and - I hope - will heal to the point where even bitterness is not necessary. I remain guarded in contacts with my ex, but I figure now that her choices are not going to control my future like they controlled my past.
Keep the faith, man. Look forward to as much life as we have knowing some will be be a joy. We can be architects of our lives even when reality puts boulders in our way.
December 7th, 2005 at 6:19 pm
“What is your experience with the Oregonian, or with newspapers in general?”
Well, I read them - I also lived in Oregon for a while.
Re: Sacks
First off - why, exactly, do you assume I haven’t read Sacks or learned anything about his background? How do you know that I haven’t simply come to the same conclusion as Ampersand and Amanda?
Secondly, biased does not equal wrong. My biggest problem with most media attempts to be evenhanded is that they fall back on treating everything as a debate with two sides. I don’t need to read every ID proponent (or any, or any ID debunker) to know that ID is unscientific - I just need the definition; all arguments are irrelevant to the final conclusion (although still helpful in debating with others).
With regard to determining how many rape charges are (criminaly) false: reading Sacks might be helpful - as long as he wasn’t the only source, which was rather my point. Needless to say the more sources the better, but not everyone can spend their life exhaustively researching every single thing they come across. That’s why we find sources we trust - biased or not - and why we turn to relatively neutral sources when we don’t have trusted sources. As much as I trust Amanda and Ampersand, I would be more likely to point someone there for insight than I would for credible statistics, because while I may find them credible, I understand that many do not.
“Extra credit”
oh, gee, do I get candy too?
“It seems that Nike was financially hurt by the Kobe Bryant rape incident. Nike is based in, yup, Beaverton, Oregon.”
I can’t believe I didn’t catch that. (although one of my first thoughts upon hearing this happened in Beaverton was “well, duh”)
Mr. Knight is quite the dipshit as well, from what I know of him. Which kinda makes me wonder…..
December 7th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
Esther says:
> The point isn€™t really whether or not she€™s telling the truth.
> It€™s whether there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that
> she€™s lying?
I€™m skeptical of the reporting on this issue. Do we now for sure that the woman was convicted of claiming she was raped when she wasn€™t? Or, was she convicted of making false statements to the police, but only in regard to certain details that she may have lied about, aside from whether or not she was raped?
Say for example, when making her report to the police, the 17 year-old girl was interviewed by an officer, and was asked if she had been drinking prior to the incident. Let€™s say, at the time, she claimed that she had not been drinking prior to the incident. If there was adequate witness testimony or forensic evidence for the judge to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she had in fact been drinking earlier that night, might that not form the basis of a conviction for making a false report to the police? I mean, the state does not have to demonstrate that she is lying specifically about being raped to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she lied about something.
Of course, in these circumstances, when people lie about smaller issues in relation to a crime, the prosecutor does not usually press charges. But, if the prosecutor and judge did not find her claims of being raped very believable, they may have been more apt to press charges against her, because her claims were directed at possibly putting three innocent boys in jail, whereas any contradictory statements made by the boys would only have been intended to get them off the hook, perhaps in case they in fact did not even rape the girl. Also, it is possible that components of the girl€™s statements to police were demonstrably false, whereas components that the boys made were not demonstrably false (due to lack of evidence). Bad luck I guess.
I guess I€™m not sure that the article reflects in detail what went on during the trial.
Kevin Hayden, you were there during the trial. Were you paying close enough attention to the legalese to find out exactly what it was they specifically thought she had lied about? Just because they discussed at length which party they thought was more believable, does not necessarily mean that the false statement she was accused of was the actual rape. It could have been something else; they just may have wanted to make that assessment before determining whether to move forward with the charge.
December 7th, 2005 at 8:18 pm
Oh and by the way…
Esther also said:
> The point isn€™t really whether or not she€™s telling the truth. Its whether
> there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that she€™s lying?
>
> Perhaps there was not evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
> that the men she is accusing raped her. But not quilty does not mean
> innocent.
>
> The reason this verdict is so odius is because she was convicted on
> such shoddy evidence. We don€™t know if she€™s quilty or not. How will
> any women who is raped know that she won€™t suffer the same fate if
> she reports her crime?
So basically, the Oregon newspaper reports that there was a he said / she said instance in a rape accusation, and the judge (or jury) ruled to convict the woman, because he thought she was lying. Based on this, you automatically come to the conclusion that the evidence was “shoddy.”
Let me ask you, would you always come to the analogous conclusion if you read a press report if there was a he said / she said rape accusaion, and the judge (or jury) chose to believe the accusor’s story, and to believe the accused?
Because, if it always goes one way, then it also always goes the other.
December 7th, 2005 at 8:21 pm
Er, that should have read “and the judge (or jury) chose to believe the accusor€™s story, and not to believe the accused?”
What exactly are you saying here Esther? That a judge can only tell when a woman is telling the truth, and never when she is lying? Ot that a judge can tell when a man is lying, but not a woman?
December 7th, 2005 at 9:51 pm
Some useful insight into statistics on false rape accusations:
http://www.salon.com/news/1999/03/cov_10news.html
http://archives.cjr.org/year/97/6/rape.asp
Kevin Hayden Said:
>
> December 4th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
> If, for example, only 10% of rape victims report their
> rapes and another 2% or 12% or whatever of the
> reported rapes are false reports, what percentage of
> all rapes that occur vs. false reports do we get?
Do you seriously think that women are *more* likely to make a false report of rape to the police than they are to make a false report of rape on a survey administered by a social worker? Chew on this for a while: http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0420.html
Excluding men, I know of several women personally who were sexually abused (I’m a nice guy so women tell me all sorts of things):
(a) Three were raped in the statutory sense (underage). Serious problem, but probably meriting separate discussion. A lot of female perpetrators in this category w.r.t. boys, as well by the way.
(b) One girl I know steadfastly believed she was raped, was a pretty staunch feminist, and would practically hold a vigil (sit in her room and mope) every year on the anniversary of the date. Problem was, on the night in question, she had absolutely no recollection of what happened because she was too drunk. In fact, the only reason she ever suspected that she was raped, is because the guy came back to her the next day to ask her on another date. Still, the girl claims she “would never have consented to have sex with him.” Gee… she has no recollection, yet he seems to remember. But guess which column she places an “X” next to when filling out a survey on rape?
(b) Another girl I know was consenting all the way through, including naked groping, until the guy unexpectedly came to an early finish at an inopportune moment on a part of her body where she didn’t expect it. She felt like it might have been rape, but wasn’t so sure. She asked, and frankly, I didn’t know what to tell her. But she was pretty steamed. Which box did she put an “x” next to?
(c) One was at a party where everyone was completely drunk. She had a few, then became totally wrecked and had sex with a guy while under the influence. She regrets it the next day, then begins to suspect that her drink must have been spiked. Based on what evidence? I can’t say for sure. All I can say is that an Australian ER did a study on this very problem, and it turned out only 2 % or so of women who came into the ER claiming to have been slipped a date rape drug actually were. But this girl I know expressed no uncertainty regarding the fact that she knew she was drugged and raped. Chalk another case up on the survey.
The other common type of case I hear about through the grapevine, is where a woman gets drunk, then has sex, then sobers up and has regrets. She claims her consent wasn’t valid because of the alcohol. Of course, as is almost always the case, they guy was drunk too, in which case, which of the two is the rapist?
Of course, these types of events result in all sorts of boxes being checked on the surveys. And it doesn’t even count those that would outright misrepresent in order to make a political point.
I don’t want to minimize the problem of rape. I’m just saying, that there is a lot of confusion out there in the statistics, and that false reporting is far more common than most would admit. This applies to both the criminal justice system and to the world of general survey-taking.
December 7th, 2005 at 10:47 pm
Julian;
A person who’s intoxicated lacks the power of consent. So those who were drunk were technically raped if they say they were raped.
I certainly understand that some folks (and women can be folks too) are uncertain of what constitutes rape. Date rape and spousal rape dialogues provoke many an angry argument.
But in a court of law, the distinctions are clearer. Rape is rape is rape. For many of the differences you defined, the answer isn’t in whether rape occurred. But the differences should be reflected in the sentencing.
December 7th, 2005 at 11:34 pm
“Or, was she convicted of making false statements to the police, but only in regard to certain details that she may have lied about, aside from whether or not she was raped?”
First of all, why in the world would they bother prosecuting her for something like this?
Secondly, from the article: “Ted Naemura, the assistant city attorney who prosecuted the case, said the woman’s false accusations were serious enough to lead to charges.” So, according to the prosecution (via the Oregonian), she was charged because her accusations were criminally false, not because statements she made to support the accusations were false.
December 7th, 2005 at 11:34 pm
I understand that I am likely going to generate some irate feedback from this, but perspective is being lost is the battle of the genders. The men involved say that it was consentual and that she instigated it. She was dating one of the accused and had reason to flirt with him and perhaps his friends. This is not consent. She may not have said “no” outright, being scared or overwhelmed with the situation. This is also not consent. One of the most difficult things in a rape case is finding proof. It is incredibly hard to as it is, in most cases, a private crime. Unless someone walks in while one person is in the act of resistance there are no witnesses. Who do you belive when one person says it was rape, and the other says it wasn’t? If there was no consistent evidence to her being raped then, by law, the case must be found not guilty. This is done so as to protect people against false accusations. It does not then follow, however, that the victim was misleading in her accusations.
So what then happens when the genders in the case are changed? A young man starts flirting with his girlfriend and one of her friends. Things progress between the three of them and become rather intimate. He is physically aroused but uncomfortable with the situation. They use manipulation and the threat of embarrassment to have intercourse with him. He has, at no point, consented to this and even gone as far as to ask them to stop. These two women have, by law, raped him. He charges them with it and they are acquitted due to lack of evidence. Did he file a false police report? Should he convicted of this? What if all involved were male? Or female?
The miscarriage of justice has nothing to do with the gender of those involved. It has to do with the fact that someone who believes they have been victimized is now punished for bringing this forward, and that is wrong.
That rape is as prevalent as it is is also wrong. I am a rape survivor, so is my spouse. Niether of us brought it to court for fear that we would be accused of lying. Perhaps we were not to far from the mark.
December 8th, 2005 at 1:39 am
Kevin Hayden said:
> A person who€™s intoxicated lacks the power of consent.
> So those who were drunk were technically raped if
> they say they were raped.
Uh… not in any of the states that I’ve ever lived in. I repeat… if they are both drunk (which is almost always the case), which of the two would be the rapist? The one who makes the first complaint? Cries the most?
Following your logic, if a man is drunk, and asks a sober woman to perform oral sex on him, if the woman unzips his pants and obliges, she goes to jail for how many years?
December 8th, 2005 at 1:43 am
The man accused, or even convicted, of rape has many allies in society, many people trying to excuse what he did, or blame it all on the woman.
But isn’t that an indictment not only on society in general, but also any close relatives and friends of the victim there. 50% of society, and a close chunk of friends/family are in fact female. So what you’re saying is that women automatically blame things on other women, and root for the man then?
Another thing to remember is that more than half of the victims of rape are men, but they are also the segment of victims that are most unreported and uncared for. Why? Because they’re in prison and so they ‘deserved’ it. I wonder if the people who get indignant (and rightfully so) about women getting labeled sluts and deserving rape have anything to say on that issue. Or should it just be ignored because only women can be raped?
Quite simply, sane people do not lie if there is no benefit to them in doing so. And the simple fact is, lying about rape has no benefit for women. So, given these facts€who would benefit from lying about rape? If it€™s not women, then who?
Sane people also do not murder if there is no benefit to them in doing so. And yet people do lots of stupid things that have no benefit for them either. But things like that have happened and will continue to do so for a very very large number of reasons. Human beings are complex, and you shouldn’t really stereotype them into one small cluster and say, aha there is no benefit to this action for me, thus it is true for all women, or all men.
December 8th, 2005 at 3:29 am
Jenny K:
> First of all, why in the world would they bother prosecuting
> her for something like this?
>
> Secondly, from the article: €œTed Naemura, the assistant city
> attorney who prosecuted the case, said the woman€™s false
> accusations were serious enough to lead to charges.€
Perhaps it’s because they strongly suspected that she was lying about rape, but all they could prove is that she lied to police about something else.
So for example, Martha Stewart was never convicted of insider trading — there wasn’t enough proof. But she was convicted of obstructing justice, because the prosecutor *could* prove that she tried to interfere with the resulting investigation.
Just a guess, but probably, the prosecutor never would have pressed charges if he had really thought that she was not involved in insider trading.
Likewise, Scooter Libby is being charged primarily for perjury I think, or is it lying to a grand jury. But from what I hear, the actual charge of having exposed Valerie Plame is either not in the works, or is unlikely to result in any conviction.
Happens all the time - prosecutor believe that you are guilty of a crime, but can’t prove it. But he does end up getting you on some lesser charge that he can prove in court. And, in case he does think you are guilty of the primary transgression, he may choose to proceed with the lesser charge.
I’m not saying that is what happened. I’m just saying the press reports aren’t detailed enough or do not convey enough detailed information to make a judgement. At least, not in my view.
It could be that this is an abuse of judicial power. Then again, it may not be. They may have had enough circumstantial evidence to prove that she lied about being raped, or they could have caught her in another lie.
Given the general rigor with which the criminal justice system now persues the crime of rape, I’m inclined to believe the latter until proven otherwise.
December 8th, 2005 at 8:42 am
hmm. how’s this for a modest proposal.
The men who are falsely accused of rape are clearly asking for it. If they didn’t put themself into a compromising position, then it could never happen to them. What, a guy picked up some girl at a bar and went home with her when she invited him, how trashy. Oh, so it is a long-standing girlfriend or wife accusing him, what is wrong with him? Wasn’t he treating her with enough respect, doing the housework and bringing her small gifts and flowers? Everyone knows that men owe the women in their life those things. Or even worse, did he really agree to group sex — he is clearly so sexually preverted he deserves to be accused of rape. I think anyone who gets falsely accused certainly deserves it, none of the guys I know would ever put themself into such a compromising situation.
December 8th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
Another thing to remember is that more than half of the victims of rape are men, but they are also the segment of victims that are most unreported and uncared for. Why? Because they€™re in prison and so they €˜deserved€™ it.
Women in prison get raped too. And I hear nary a peep about it from the folks who talk about male prisoner rape.
December 8th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Can’t we all just get along?
December 9th, 2005 at 12:14 am
I’d like to address the thought process of “If both the man and the woman are drunk, who got raped?”
If a woman is incapacitated from alcohol, she is incapable of giving her consent for sex.
If a man is incapacitated from alcohol…. are you saying he’s incapable of not raping someone? Are you saying that men are just animals, covered with a thin social veneer that the slightest shift with destroy, leaving them mindless beasts with no ability to control themselves? Because those people get locked up…
One is active. To rape. One is passive. To be raped. That’s just putting the responsibility on the victim. It seems very simple here. You are a man, you want to have sex, you have to get consent. Why is this point even argued? If you’re too drunk to get consent, you’re still a rapist. If you’re too drunk to fight off a rapist, you get raped. If you’re SO drunk that you can’t say “Yes, I’d like to have sex” or “No, get off me”… and a man takes your incapability to do anything but flop around and drool as consent, he’s a rapist. Why is it so hard to understand? Did you ask? Did she say yes? Go have some sex! Hooray sex! Did you ask? Did she say no? Walk away, or you’re a rapist. Did you ask? Did her head merely loll to the other side? Walk away, or you’re still a rapist, whether you’re drunk or not. Isn’t the risk of raping someone enough of a deterrent to make you pay more attention?! Or do some men just not care how they damage a woman? As long as they get their rocks off…? If you honestly care about women, why on earth would you take the risk? Why can’t you just WALK AWAY?
If “I was soooo drunk” is your explanation for why you had sex with an unwilling or incapacitated partner, why not get drunk and rob a gas station… or get drunk and have sex with a mentally disabled woman… or murder someone. It’s sounds like the demon whiskey is a grand excuse. Y’know… I’ve been drunk many many times. I’ve been drunk and consented to sex with someone I really kinda wished I hadn’t… but I DID consent, because HE ASKED. As an honest person, the next day jitters are my own responsibility because I CONSENTED. So is the argument here, at it’s root… that women are untrustworthy liars?
So many men see alcohol, more specifically getting a woman so drunk she’s practically (or actually) unconsious, as being a keen and acceptable way of getting laid. It’s not. It’s a keen and (unfortunately) accepted way of raping someone who otherwise might say no. Yes, you can be drunk and want to have sex. If you’re drunk, and you want to have sex, give your consent, and deal with the morning after… But guys… you’re on the other end of that one. If you’re not sure about it, walk away and find someone you can be more sure of.
December 9th, 2005 at 1:33 am
Ah..problem there, azzy.
“If a woman is incapacitated from alcohol, she is incapable of giving her consent for sex.” And a man isn’t?
While the vast majority of rape (non-prison disclaimer ya ya) is perpetrated by men upon women, that doesn’t mean that the onus for permission during drunkenness is upon the male. Basically, the onus should be on whoever is initiating and controlling the sex act. If both are, it’s consensual and a moot point as rape didn’t happen. If only one did, that person is the rapist, regardless of sex.
“You are a man, you want to have sex, you have to get consent. ” Well, yeah. That’s self-evident. But it works both ways. It should properly be [You want to have sex, you have to get consent.] - Gender doesn’t matter for consent. Men do not “automatically” consent to any and all sex.
You’re assuming that the physical action of sex is based upon the male. It’s not always the male “doing it” to the female. The man is not always “active.” The woman is not always “passive.” Sure, biology makes it easier for a man to rape a woman than vice-versa, but…it’s not universal, particularly when mind-altering substances (legal or illegal) are involved.
Last winter a male friend of mine was raped. He was drunk as hell, on shrooms, etc at New Years. She had sex with him, not the other way around. The pertinent information that makes it rape is that he did not consent to the sexual act (or any other preliminary act, for that matter) vocally or physically. Sure, he got an erection. But a woman getting wet doesn’t mean she consents.
Side note/disclaimer/CMA:
I’m a firm supporter of equal rights, consideration and due process for all people, regardless of race, gender, or species. (Yes, a few of us can be classified as non-Homo Sapiens due to inability to breed with the general human population.)
–
In any case, it does seem pretty suspicious that she was convicted in this case. Anybody got a link to the court transcripts? (Yeah, right…but it’d be nice.)
December 9th, 2005 at 5:53 am
I am a feminist, although I am not a theorist. However, I would like to address the comment regarding “rape culture” as an “extremist feminist bugbear.” It seems to me that this is not a very helpful definition of “rape culture” with which to have a discussion, so I will try to provide a more helpful definition.
As I understand it “rape culture” refers to any cultural circumstance in which a particular group of people live in particular fear of being rape victims. In general western society, this applies to women, although it also exists for men, as well as women (as many people have pointed out) in prison. While all people are potential victims of many crimes, we are not culturally designated as victims of that particular crime. For instance, every time I leave my house, there is a chance that it could be robbed, but I don’t feel that there is a _particular_ need for me to feel that way because I am a woman/student/person with long hair/whatever. However, when I walk across my campus at night, I feel a particular fear of being raped (not just assaulted or mugged, but raped). I know that a lot of women feel this way, simply from talking to other women, many of whom do not identify as feminists. These feeling exist, and to say that they are simply a “feminist bugbear” is pretty much the same as saying for instance, that fearing a massive earthquake in California is an “anti-nature bugbear.”
In general society, women fear rape, and half-expect it to happen to them, because rape is so common. In prisons, from what I have heard (never having experienced prison myself), prisoners feel this way. This does not mean that most men, or most prisoners are rapists, it just means that a person’s status as a “woman” or a “prisoner” means that they are particularly likely to be a victim of this crime.
Now, someone brought up the example of a young woman who believed she had been drugged, but had actually only been extremely drunk. (I do believe this is a real recent example from “schoolies week” in Queensland, Australia– the girl genuinely believed she had been drugged). Let us assume that she ordered all her drinks herself, and that none of her companions ordered her double bourbon and cokes without her knowledge, and that the person she thinks assaulted her was equally drunk. Why does she think she was drugged and raped? Is it because she’s a big nasty feminist who is out to falsely accuse a man? That’s why she got incredibly drunk and ended up in hospital, to make a false accusation? I think that you can see how ridiculous that is. Most likely she’s a fairly naive 18 year old who doesn’t identify as feminist at all (most young Australian women don’t), doesn’t know too much about alcohol, and certainly doesn’t hate men or want to falsely accuse them. However, she will have a cultural understanding that, because she is female, she is much more likely to be the victim of a rape, and the victim of tactics like date-rape drugs.
If we dismiss rape culture as a feminist bogey, then we aren’t really left with any plausible account of why she would believe she had been drugged. If, however, we accept that rape culture is real, we do have a plausible reason. (This also demonstrates that although rape culture is the result of a culture in which women are often rape victims and survivors, and that the primary victims of rape culture are women, rape culture is not harmful ONLY to women). I do not, by this, mean to say that I think these cases are the norm– I believe that they are in fact extremely rare, and that most cases of reported rape are geniune. But I did want to point out that when these cases do occur, it is utterly implausible to blame it on out of control vindictive women who have it in for men.
I think a similar example could be a person who is a member of a racial minority who lives in fear of, and might even be a victim of racism. Even when a non-racist person of the majority racial group behaves normally towards them, they might see racism. I have had this happen to me– a few years ago, I was working in a store that had a blanket bag checking policy (this is fairly common in Australia), which was applied to all customers of all ages and races. I don’t necessarily agree with this policy, but it was part of my job at the time. I had one man get very angry with me because he believed that I was asking to check his bag because he was of a different race to me. Now, I could argue that the problem was some insane person who wanted to make false accusations against me out of vindictiveness, but the fact is that the real problem is racism against minority groups, “racism culture” if you like. This fellow probably lived with the fear of racism, for himself and his family, day in and day out, because there are in fact a lot of racist people out there. If that racism didn’t exist, there would have been no false accusation. I’d also be willing to bet that he experienced racism a lot more often than he accused others of perpetrating it.
I know that this mini-treatise is veering off a bit from the topic of the woman in this case, but I really think the issue of “rape culture” needed to be addressed clearly.
On the actual topic–one does wonder how a woman can be convicted of giving a false report to the police when there is clearly so much room for reasonable doubt. Really, if you are looking to understand why feminists create a fuss about women not being believed, you just have to look at the features of this case, where, it seems, the evidence for her supposed “lies” was three men whose stories did not match up, and the fact that her behaviour did not conform to what is “expected” of a rape victim, as though all rape victims respond in exactly the same way. Whether or not there was be enough evidence to convict the men she accused, the very fact that she was accused of lying due to a lack of evidence against them shows that there are some serious problems in terms of belief in the legal system, as well as larger cultural problems regarding the way that women are expected to behave. Regarding this particular issue I feel sickened, and I hope that the woman in question has plenty of support during this difficult time.
December 9th, 2005 at 6:08 am
Just as an after-note– I would like to make it clear that I am NOT a rape victim myself, and that I am commenting on rape-culture as a non victim who is nonetheless affected by the cultural implications of rape. I would never claim, however, that my experiences and feelings could be anything close to, nor that they could EVER represent the feelings of rape victims and survivors.
December 9th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
Okay, another amendment, regarding a problem I found in my argument– I just want to make it clear that in the case of the girl who thought she had been drugged, even if she was assaulted by someone equally drunk, then I am not trying to make that an excuse– if he did that, then whether or not her drink had been spiked is pretty irrelevant. I’m simply assuming for the case of the argument (and please note that I would not make this assumption if dealing with the case in real life) that she experienced effects that reminded her of what she had read about date-rape drugs, and therefore jumped to the conclusion that one of her companions had attempted assault.
However, in reality, I don’t think we can rule out the possiblity that she was assaulted while her ability to consent was reduced by alcohol. I just wanted to make the point that even if this was one of the extremely rare cases of a false report, then a feminist analysis of the situation is actually more helpful in explaining it, than stating that her actions were simply vindictive.
December 9th, 2005 at 6:24 pm
azzy23 Says:
>
> I€™d like to address the thought process of €œIf both the
> man and the woman are drunk, who got raped?€
>
> If a woman is incapacitated from alcohol, she is
> incapable of giving her consent for sex.
>
> If a man is incapacitated from alcohol€. are you
> saying he€™s incapable of not raping someone?
No, I€™m saying, if what you say is true, then a man incapacitated from alcohol is likewise incapable of giving his consent for sex.
FYI, I’m a guy, and I’ve gotten drunk, had women make passes at me, where I responded by having sex, then I’ve woken up the next morning with *serious* regrets and feelings of shame.
Some of these women were frankly disgusting. (It may not be chivalrous for me to say so, but there it is, honestly.)
Do I go out screaming that I€™ve been sexually assaulted? No, I blame myself, for having drank too much, even when it was a woman who was instigating things (was shy when I was young), because, unlike a lot of young girls these days, I was not educated to believe that it was the rest of the world€™s obligation to protect me from myself, and short of that, everyone else goes to jail.
Now, is a man incapacitated from alcohol capable of raping someone? Absolutely. But that presumes that the person he rapes actually does not voluntarily participate in sex. You€™re talking about a different scenario than the one I was discussion.
In short, being drunk is not an excuse for raping someone, neither is it an excuse for having offered your consent to another person to have sex (therefore claiming you were raped after the fact). Not all women (or men) are apparently clear on this fact.
> Y€™know€ I€™ve been drunk many many times. I€™ve been
> drunk and consented to sex with someone I really kinda
> wished I hadn€™t€ but I DID consent, because HE
> ASKED. As an honest person, the next day jitters are my
> own responsibility because I CONSENTED. So is the
> argument here, at it€™s root€ that women are untrustworthy liars?
No wait. You€™re getting things confused. If by €œincapacitated€ you mean unconscious, then of course €œif a woman is incapacitated from alcohol, she is incapable of giving her consent for sex.€ But €œincapacitated€ men are then obviously incapable of raping someone, because they€™re unconscious (duh!)
This is completely different from what Kevin was saying, which was that if a woman is intoxicated (but obviously conscious), she €œlacks the power of consent.€ e.g. if a woman in intoxicated and consents to sex, then a man may be held at fault with having sex with her, because she was drunk and her consent wasn€™t valid.
I€™m glad you agree with me on this, that drunken consent is still conesnt. Because, believe it or not, not all people are clear on this.
December 9th, 2005 at 6:27 pm
# Beppie Says:
December 9th, 2005 at 5:00 pm
>
> Okay, another amendment, regarding a problem I found
> in my argument€“ I just want to make it clear that in the
> case of the girl who thought she had been drugged, even
> if she was assaulted by someone equally drunk, then I am
> not trying to make that an excuse€“ if he did that, then
> whether or not her drink had been spiked is pretty irrelevant.
Sure, if she was assaulted, she was assaulted. But if she volunteered having sex with another person who was also drunk or sufficiently impaired by alcohol, then I guess that’s her tough luck. I’m not going to choose between equally culpable persons, and decide based upon that, who goes to jail for 7 years.
December 9th, 2005 at 10:03 pm
Well, I just wanted to point out that we can’t dismiss the posibility that she was assaulted simply because she was drunk– I felt that my original post (unintentionally) seemed a bit too dismissive of that possibility. Remember also that I posited anyone else involved merely for the sake of argument (and I am actually not sure now why I needed to do so, but anyway…). But you have to realise that the situation I posited for the argument was only ONE possibility given her situation– I wanted to point out that in that scenario, she is still not vindictive or even guilty intentionally misleading anyone. (Don’t forget schoolies weeks tend to have high levels of sexual assault, and it’s a concern for everyone who turns up there).
It’s also worth noting that this scenario is not the most likely one. Most likely, if she was in such a state that she thought she had been drugged she probably was pretty incapacitated– unable to walk unassisted or talk coherently (and thus unable to give consent). If she was assaulted, even if her attacker was drunk, it’s highly unlikely that he would have been similarly incapacitated, in which case the onus WOULD be on him to recognise that consent was impossible in those circumstances. Furthermore, the most common form of drink spiking at schoolies week is spiking drinks with alcohol, so that someone drinks twice as much as they thought they would. So there are also potential consent problems in terms of how much alcohol she drank in addition to consent to sexual activity.
December 10th, 2005 at 12:14 am
Clarification: if she’s too drunk, she is incapable of giving consent. If a man’s too drunk and initiates sex, that’s obviously not a situation where he’s a victim of anything. If he’s too drunk and a sober woman has sex with him when he’s too drunk to knowingly consent, then once again, she’s taken advantage of his incapacity and he can pursue a sexual assault charge against her.
If they’re both drunk, I’d guess it’d be up to a judge to determine whether anything illegal’s occurred.
I erred in my previous comment by suggesting it was all cut-and-dried without thinking through the variables.
December 11th, 2005 at 2:36 am
Actually, I think it is misdirected to evaluate her level of “drunkenness” to determine consent. We already have the body of the crime, which the three already had admitted to. What is at issue is the mind of the crime, which doesn’t depend on her level of “drunkenness” at all.
What it does depend on, however, is whether these three guys believed they had an otherwise unavailable advantage because she had liquor in her. If this can be proven, then they have committed rape. If, however, it seems the “yes” was given freely by her, and was the same answer she’d give were she sober, then they cannot truly be convicted of rape. I highly doubt the latter, but this is what courts are there for.
The point is, it goes to intent, which is to take advantage of a weakened person. And if this intent is proven, then it is a crime against society regardless of her intensity of drunkenness. It depends on their state of mind, not hers. That’s the way it works with every other crime in the books; it should be no different with this one.
But this is all moot anyway, because the three men will not stand trial. In the eyes of the justice system, they have already been vindicated. To seek further revenge for a suffering that was all but non-existent is overkill and a twisted set of priorities to me, especially when the number of unpunished rapes (felonies) is at least thirty times the number of unpunished false reports (misdemeanors).
That means that while this one woman has been convicted of filing a false report that didn’t even lead to a trial, 30 appreciative rapists shall remain free to do as they wish.
Please excuse me if I don’t take men’s rights activists too seriously on this subject.
December 11th, 2005 at 6:22 am
> Actually, I think it is misdirected to evaluate her level of
> €œdrunkenness€ to determine consent. We already have
> the body of the crime, which the three already had
> admitted to.
No, we don’t. It’s not a crime to have homosexual sex, sex while drunk, group sex, nor groups sex while drunk. Nor should it be illegal.
> What it does depend on, however, is whether these three guys
> believed they had an otherwise unavailable advantage because
> she had liquor in her.
Or visa versa, I suppose.
> If this can be proven,
Which it can’t…
> then they have committed rape. If, however, it seems the €œyes€
> was given freely by her, and was the same answer she€™d give
> were she sober, then they cannot truly be convicted of rape.
> I highly doubt the latter, but this is what courts are there for.
I highly doubt that any of the three boys would have participated in group sex if they were sober also. What’s your point.
> The point is, it goes to intent, which is to take advantage of a
> weakened person. And if this intent is proven, then it is a
> crime against society regardless of her intensity of
> drunkenness. It depends on their state of mind, not hers.
No, it also depends on her state of mind. Because it is just as plausible that she, in a drunken state, may be attempting to take advantage of s drunken situation to act out a fantasy, also.
December 11th, 2005 at 7:29 am
The decision in this case didn’t surprise me one bit. I was involved in a similar situation years ago in NYC. A male friend of mine was raped in the basement of my college dorm by a Business School student at the same university. Being a male-on-male rape, the cops didn’t treat the evidence properly, nor did the hospital staff — it wasn’t taken “seriously”. The student apparently had money, as he had a lawyer in the Dean’s office the following day. Instead of the rapist being arrested, the rape victim was arrested for “falsely reporting a crime”. The Sex Crimes D.A. at the time was Linda Fairstein (if anyone knows NYC politics, you might know that she was later investigated for fraud and corruption). She instructed my friend to leave New York and not return for 5 years. He was penniless and powerless, so he obeyed and left.
December 13th, 2005 at 4:30 pm
Ana, I’m so sorry for your friend. I’ve researched male-on-male rape and this crime is grossly underreported. Surprisingly, most unstances of male-on-male rape do not occur in prison, nor are the majority of victims or perpetrators homosexual (further proof that rape is NOT about sex). It’s estimated that between one in seven and one in 33 men are sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. About one in four women will be raped. (Although, and this is only anecdotal, I would say that about 40 percent of my female friends have been raped or sexually assaulted. None has reported the crime out of fear they would be disbelieved and their names dragged through the mud, and their sexual histories exposed for all the world to see)
The reason I began researching male-on-male rape is because most of the men I knew, who identified themselves as progressive or liberal, labored under the misbelief that women were constantly trying to falsely accuse men of rape. I thought that if I could point out to them that men are victims of rape too that they might be more sympathetic to the plight of rape victims and might be less likely to automatically disbelieve women who accused men of rape.
I’m sorry I don’t have citations for these statistics. I have to dig them up and then I will post them.
December 13th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Advice and some stats for men who’ve been raped: http://www.ncweb.com/org/rapecrisis/malerape.html
Some stats and information on male rape: http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32361
A page with many links about male rape: http://after-words.org/malerape.htm
Some stats: http://webits3.appstate.edu/apples/life/Rape/numbers.htm
More stats: http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html
If anyone would like me to post more support sites, just ask.
December 16th, 2005 at 5:31 am
Who says men are not falsely accused of rape?
So far, in Richmond, VA, 5 of 31 men convicted of rape are exonerated by old forensic evidence after having served extended prison sentences. This says nothing of course about the number of men who *did* have sex with the woman in question, but where the sex was not rape.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/14/dna.virginia.ap.ap/index.html
December 16th, 2005 at 5:37 am
P.S. If you are concerned for these falsely accused, and others, donations can be made to the Life After Exoneration program at:
http://www.exonerated.org/