A friend from across the state pasted and emailed a blog post written by a woman named Marcella Chester. She runs a blog with a peculiar name that I can't remember. Ms. Chester claims to have been raped and writes a blog that . . . well, you can guess what that blog is about. My friend sent it to me only to rile me up -- he thought that would be funny -- but it didn't have that effect. I must be honest, I didn't exactly follow Ms. Chester's point, but in fairness to her, I certainly did not read it closely.
I did see one point I absolutely agree with: ". . . the police announcing a suspect's guilt or filing charges against someone is not proof of guilt."
That is absolutely correct.
And some corollaries must also be true: When the police can't classify a rape claim as "false," often because the nature of the allegation coupled with insufficient evidence prevents such a classification, then THAT is not proof of guilt, and THAT claim should not automatically be considered a "rape." (Note: the implication of the false rape claim denialists is that any rape claim that isn't categorically declared "false" must have been a rape. You know what I'm referring to: if a certain percentage of rape claims are are said to be "false" -- and I know, those people continue to cite that two percent canard -- they dishonestly imply that the remainder -- including all the ones that did not lead to conviction -- were ACTUAL rapes. Ms. Chester wouldn't do that, would she? Would she?)
Another corollary: A woman bragging to a pollster that she was raped, without any attempt on the pollster's part to examine the claim much less consider any defenses thereto, is not proof that a rape occurred. Is it? Is it, Ms. Chester?
I mean, Marcella Chester can't have it both ways, can she? I mean, can she?