Don't get me wrong, I say "kudos to SI!" for good old-fashioned capitalist ingenuity. It must be damn tough in the cyber age to sell magazines made of actual paper, ink, and staples, and the SI gang has picked perhaps the most sensational sports story in the past year, this side of Tiger Woods, to slap on their cover.
But enough is enough. The media's gang bang to vilify Roethlisberger has reached the hysterical boiling point.
The fourth estate almost universally blinks at the single most important fact concerning the events surrounding Roethlisberger's March 4, 2010 visit to the Capitol City nightclub in Milledgeville, Georgia: Roethlisberger was likely the victim of a false rape claim.
We've previously explained on this site that the accusing co-ed's explanation about what occurred can aptly be described as a moving target. She lacks credibility because her three statements to police within several hours of the "incident" suggest the evolving narrative of a woman groping for victimhood. Consider: (1) The accuser's "No" in response to a question about whether she was raped, and her "I'm not sure" if she and Roethlisberger even had sex, were later transformed into (2) the accuser claiming she told Ben "I don't know if this is a good idea" before they had sex, which was later transformed into (3) the accuser claiming she told Ben "no, this is not OK" before they had sex that she didn't want to have.
That is the sort of material criminal defense attorneys usually only dream about. The local district attorney, Fredric D. Bright, decided not to press charges against Mr. Roethlisberger because, he said, the duty of a district attorney is to seek justice. More specifically, Mr. Bright knew he couldn't win.
Does it matter even a little to the the folks who write for America's major dailies that Mr. Roethlisberger was likely the victim of our nation's silent epidemic, a false rape claim?
Take Ann Belser of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, for example. Read what she wrote, and tell me if you think it matters to Ms. Belser in the slightest that Mr. Roethlisberger was likely falsely accused of rape:
"Even if you cast Ben's actions in the most favorable light, they appall. At the very least, he took advantage of a drunk college student who was significantly smaller and younger than him, a young woman who made horrible choices on a bad night."
Excuse me, Ms. Belser. If you cast Mr. Roethlisberger's actions in the most favorable light, he was the victim here -- of a false rape claim -- and that should appall everyone.
If you cast Mr. Roethlisberger's actions in the most favorable light, a 20-year-old woman did not just make "horrible choices on a bad night." A guy who runs out of gas two miles from the nearest Sunoco station after deciding not to fill up when he had the chance made a "horrible choice on a bad night." To say the same thing about Mr. Roethlisberger's accuser trivializes her attempt to destroy another human being by using the full apparatus of law enforcement to deprive him of his liberty for many years for a crime he never committed.
Or does that matter to you, even a little, Ms. Belser?
Sadly, Ms. Belser's opinion is typical of the cackling features and sports writers who've deigned to "shed light" on the story for us, the great unwashed.
One person who "gets it" -- about Ben, and about all presumptively innocent men saddled with a rape claim that ends up being dismissed because it's probably not true -- is Western Pennsylvania sports bon vivant Mark Madden. He writes:
"The minute Roethlisberger is exonerated, he becomes the victim. Mistakenly accused. Tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Unfairly maligned by the media. Subject to speculated punishment ranging from jail to suspension to unemployment. Those things don’t go away, can’t be unsaid, now that it turns out Roethlisberger didn’t do anything.
"Roethlisberger’s detractors won’t agree. 'Didn’t do anything?' they will fairly roar. 'He obviously did something!'
"No, he didn’t. Roethlisberger really is a victim, proof anyone can accuse anyone of practically anything and have it taken seriously. There was never a legitimate case against Roethlisberger. Not a shred.
"So, get over it. Ask nice, and maybe Roethlisberger will sign your autograph next time. Roethlisberger will have a big season. Bet on it. The great ones block out trouble, focus and perform."
Posts
66 comments:
A tough sell to make Roethlisberger sympathetic, but how can anyone argue with what you've said?
"So, get over it. Ask nice, and maybe Roethlisberger will sign your autograph next time. Roethlisberger will have a big season. Bet on it. The great ones block out trouble, focus and perform."
Yes, if one defines trouble as a pulled tendon or a torn ligament. I think the shame of hostile mainstream media exposure and a severely tarnished reputation will throw his game off just as it has for Tiger Woods.
http://www.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2010/04/tiger-woods-needs-a-miracle-to-make-the-cut-at-quail-hollow/1
As I have posted before on FRS, we are social animals and Isolation is the Ultimate Poison:
http://howardbloom.net/lucifer/excerpt1.html
http://howardbloom.net/lucifer/excerpt2.html
""Even if you cast Ben's actions in the most favorable light, they appall. At the very least, he took advantage of a drunk college student who was significantly smaller and younger than him, a young woman who made horrible choices on a bad night."
--------------------------
If I can glean the key points of logic in this, they must be the following:
- Ben is a jerk because he likes women smaller than him. Decent guys are only into BBWs
- since women are often smaller than men, this is also somehow proof of their moral innocence
- it is up to a man to decide whether a woman has drunk too much to make a rational decision. Men are women's babysitters. And women are such ditzy dames that only a little alcohol and they turn into brainless idiots
- a woman made bad choices. Ergo, a man must have his life ruined as proper restitution
- men should never do anything with women younger than them. Even if said woman is well past the age of consent. Decent guys are only into cougars and milfs
- men must never do anything with women who go to college. The standards for admission to such institutions nowadays are so abysmally low that even the intellectually retarded can get in. Ergo, those who are mentally impaired are not legally capable of giving consent
There must be some pearls of wisdom I have missed here. Can someone else please take over?
Nick, how about:
Women, and women alone, may partake in the hook-up culture without responsibility.
So according to this blog, is every man accused of rape a victim of false accusation? THAT'S NOT TRUE.
I think he did rape that girl- numerous witnesses and bystanders to the crime acknowledge the criminality of it all.
"So according to this blog, is every man accused of rape a victim of false accusation?"
Maybe you should spend a couple of weeks reading through this blog before you parade your contemptible ignorance to the world.
The answer to your inane, insulting question, is "no."
As for your uninformed opinion that she was "raped," we have quoted her own statements about what went on in a room where only she and Mr. Roethlisberger were present. Those statements indicate an incredible witness and strongly suggest that her "rape" claim was made without any factual basis.
But, hey, it must be nice to know better than the actual accuser.
Just for fun, I found this in the Denver post discussing Arizona's new immigration law:
opinion
Quillen: One way not to fight Colorado crime
By Ed Quillen
The Denver Post
Posted: 05/06/2010 01:00:00 AM MDT
"It's hard enough to get rape victims even to report the crime, let alone testify in court. Now throw this in: She's scared she'll get deported if she calls us. Or somebody who gets robbed. Is he going to report the theft if he thinks we're going to check his papers and deport him?"
Of course not, I agreed. "So we always make it clear that we're not there to enforce immigration laws. We're there to ask about a theft or assault or whatever."
With all the true, clear cut cases of FRA, it's a shame to keep wasting good perfume spraying that pig.
Ben Roethlisberger is no FRA poster boy.
"Ben Roethlisberger is no FRA poster boy."
It's easy to stand up for the Duke lacrosse boys, the Hofstra falsely accused, or countless others. But the fact is, innumerable presumptively innocent men who are not Mother Teresa are blackened with a rape claim -- and they will never, ever, ever be able to "prove" it didn't happen.
These unvirtuous, slimy men don't deserve to be treated as likely rapists simply because they are unvirtuous and slimy, any more than an unvirtuous rape victim deserves to be treated as "asking for it."
In fact, these men are probably the norm among false rape victims.
It is our job to make certain that those presumptively innocent men accused of rape charges that are dropped (because the charges are likely false) are not destroyed by the claim. Even if they aren't virtuous. Even if they are sleezebags.
For all his clear and palpable faults, it seems to me that Ben Roethlisberger likely didn't commit rape. It's time to stop treating him as if he's a rapist, and it's time to stop treating his likely false accuser as if she's a victim.
Nick S. -
I think you miss some of the keen points of logic.
#1 - Having sex with a drunk woman in a bathroom does not mean he 'liked' her.
Decent men don't have sex in public toilets with drunk women no matter their size.
Decent men don't have bodyguards barring the bathroom door to have sex with drunken women.
News flash, Nick - Ben Roethlisberger is not a 'decent' man by any standard.
Women who strut around in whorish clothing, get drunk, go to men's rooms @ 3:00 A.M. and walk alone after dark don't 'deserve' to be raped, but you have to wonder what they were thinking ...
Men who have sex with extremely drunk women much younger than themselves, in public toilets with body guards blocking her concerned friends from checking on her welfare don't deserve to be falsely accused, but again, you have to wonder ...
Kudos to Mark Madden for being an intelligent writer who can actually put things in perspective and not just resort to sensationalism (which re-victimises the victim).
"Men are women's babysitters. And women are such ditzy dames that only a little alcohol and they turn into brainless idiots"
Eh, they don't need the alcohol.
"With all the true, clear cut cases of FRA, it's a shame to keep wasting good perfume spraying that pig.
Ben Roethlisberger is no FRA poster boy."
I do see your point.
But it's quite simple.
Men who have not committed rape, should not be accused of having committed rape, no matter who they are.
To fail to defend Ben because we take issue with certain OTHER facts about him which have nothing to do with the false rape accusation, would just be self-indulgent and completely misses the point.
This isn't a site to MORALISE to young men how they should live.
Even those men who make mistakes - e.g. drop out of college, take drugs, even beat up their girlfriends - should not have rape claims made against them if they have not committed rape.
And the scum that do make these claims, must be punished, HARSHLY and SEVERELY - dare I say it, IRREVOCABLY.
It's really that simple.
I think it is very wrong to insinuate or imply that Roethlisberger is a unvirtuous, slimy, sleezebag.
What did he do that was so wrong?
"I think it is very wrong to insinuate or imply that Roethlisberger is a unvirtuous, slimy, sleezebag."
I do agree; I shouldn't judge anyone, so please allow me to reword my sentiments.
All we know are some alleged incidents. But incidents, even if true, don't sum up the man. We know very little about any of the men we report on. The fact is, for a lot of these cases, the boys behaved in ways that I don't approve of. Does that mean they are evil? Absolutely not. Does it mean they should be treated as rapists or quasi-rapists? Absolutely not.
So Ben Roethlisberger IS the FRA poster boy.
I see.
Or, no. I guess I don't see.
Maybe definitions are in order.
I've been laboring under the delusion that a false rape accusation is a blatant, patently false lie knowingly made by a woman.
Am I now to understand it's more 'grey' than that?
While I don't condone the acccuser's behavior in this circumstance, I do not find clear convincing evidence this woman lied. I think she honestly believed she had been raped.
That she was too drunk to be clear on all the facts does not mean she lied. I have the impression if she were to be administered a polygraph, she would pass.
True, men are not women's babysitters. It does not mean 'open season' for women who drink too much, however.
I think if the bodyguards had not prevented her friends from checking on her, this would be a non issue.
They were obviously there to look out for each other, but were circumvented by bodyguards.
"Let's do it in the head" imples consent. Drunk or not. "I don't know...I'm not sure..." implies non consent - not "your'e wearing a naughty name tag, you're drunk, and I can get away with this. Nuthin' you can do about it".
Just to make my personal position clear : I am not here in support of borderline predators who know how to get away with it. I support innocent men who either by mistake, misperception, or complete innocence find themselves FALSELY accused of rape by a person intentionally lying.
I am willing to give those accused a LOT of leeway, and I believe a woman's first duty is to protect herself from being in a questionable situation in the first place(knowing friends flake out and mistakes are learned the hard way) - especially when it comes to very young and inexperienced people.
Ben Roethlisberger is not young, nor is he inexperienced. He knows 'the rules' to protect his extremely lucrative career, yet he flagrantly broke them - knowing he would get a mere slap on the wrist.
I have to think he knew better than to take an extremely young, drunk woman into a public toilet for sex,yet did so any way knowing the reprecussions would be minor. After all he had body guards willing to barricade her friends from coming to her rescue, and most likely willing to testify to his account of what happened.
Those who feel this is what's most representative of what constitutes a 'false' rape accusation - I must respectfully disagree.
I'll pass on the autograph, thank you.
"I'll pass on the autograph, thank you." I was standing right next to him at a party one time and didn't bother asking for his autograph.
Here's breaking news: "Former New York Giants great Lawrence Taylor was arrested after allegedly raping and beating a teenage girl in a New York hotel Thursday, CBS 2 has learned."
Read the following paragraph and tell me if this isn't a rush to judgment:
"Details surrounding the rape have not yet been released other than the location and that it occurred early this morning. Charges against the Hall of Fame linebacker will be filed once police complete their investigation."
Did you get that? Not the "ALLEGED" rape. And charges WILL be brought after the police investigate. Sounds very Soviet, don't you think?
I think she honestly believed she had been raped.
****
When you "honestly believe" that, you don't tell three contradictory stories to the police, each one of which makes Ben look a little worse than the last. But she has made it clear: there was no rape. Don't allow he nifongist media to tell you otherwise.
Equally important is what is not in any of those statements: namely, she never claimed that he either threatened her or that she was even afraid, and she doesn't describe him removing her clothes. All that happened is she said, "Are you sure this is okay?" And he said "It's okay," and they were off to the sexual races. Now she doesn't look like a slut, so she blames him. It's ridiculous.
I'm tired of hearing how he's the bad guy, even though she's the one who made misleading statements to the police, and who ran to a cop to whine about consensual sex. He is the victim in this situation.
There wasn't even an alleged rape. She never alleged rape, not even in her final, most anti-Ben statement. Talking a girl into it isn't rape.
False Rape accusations should be a felony in all 50 states!
Being charged only with filing false police report is not enough and is an injustice to the falsely accused!
Support lawmakers who support change!
Subvert the dominant paradigm that owns the legal system from 40 years of organized academic feminism!
Demand justice now!
As if this isn't enough, OT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/sports/football/07taylor.html
Lawrence Taylor is accused of raping a fifteen year-old prostitute. (Uh-huh; my alarm bells are going off, too.) Time will tell if this is anything but a load of shit.
"I think she honestly believed she had been raped."
And she may have been wrong.
Remember, feminists have for decades been broadening the definition of 'rape'.
Just as you say that an FRA is made knowingly, intentionally, to ruin a man's life - so I believe that rapes are committed knowingly and intentionally.
If the man thought it was consensual sex, IT WAS CONSENSUAL SEX. End of. There is no way a man could continue believing it was consensual if she protests. He would know she wants to stop. Then it may be rape, if he does not stop. If she APPEARS TO CONSENT, it is consensual sex.
This is how I define consent and rape - because it's not the man's duty to read the woman's mind and know that, although she is saying 'yes', what she MEANS is 'no'.
Or even, that tomorrow, she might think 'no' about the very incident she said 'yes' about at the time.
But this is exactly how feminists have sought to redefine rape - such that its validity as a rape is determined NOT by mens rea, but by HER OWN FEELINGS, even if she forms them AFTER sex that she consented to.
So, what we need is a cultural and linguistic revolution regarding definition and use of the term and concept 'rape'. Because right now it means practically anything. Such that if a not particularly bright young girl who talks dirty to a guy all night and wears a nametag saying 'down to fuck' ends up getting fucked by him, and consents, then later decides she didn't want to have done that, she probably WAS raped, by the new feminist definition.
But this new feminist definition is nothing short of FASCIST. We know precisely what effects it has. It is pure fascism. The actualisation of prejudice and hatred into violence and persecution.
Even if a woman makes a rape complaint, and sincerely believes she was raped, it does not follow that she was actually raped.
She might have just had sex, and she might just be a little confused about what rape actually is.
I don't doubt that she felt lower than dirt when he came and then left without even saying anything. But that's what happens to groupies who fuck stars. She's old enough to know that.
But this is exactly how feminists have sought to redefine rape - such that its validity as a rape is determined NOT by mens rea, but by HER OWN FEELINGS, even if she forms them AFTER sex that she consented to.
****
Yeah, no kidding. And since every feminist who ever crawled out of the slime is a miserable neurotic who never knows a moment of pleasure except when an innocent man is charged with a crime, they feel raped every single moment of their lives, whether they were ever raped in reality or not.
"I don't doubt that she felt lower than dirt when he came and then left without even saying anything. But that's what happens to groupies who fuck stars. She's old enough to know that."
Exactly, Anon.
I'm very sorry that she felt like shit and mistakenly believes she was raped, but her feeeeelings (brought on by her own poor actions) do not entitle her to fuck someone else's life.
SHE needs to be put in prison for a long time, and placed on the sex offender's register for life. Too harsh? I don't think so. There are some places they would stone her to death for what she's done. While that seems like overkill, at least the men in those places probably avoid false accusations.
Archivist: I love "the evolving narrative of a woman groping for victimhood."
Anon at 12:44: You have good taste -- it's the most important sentence in the post.
"I don't doubt that she felt lower than dirt when he came and then left without even saying anything."
I do. There is no evidence that they had sex, or what you said happened.
When I was in college I was told by the Rape Awareness Center on campus that a woman would never, ever, ever, ever lie about rape. Ever. She is always to be believed 100% of the time. Period.
It is this type of rigid misinformation that plants the seed of opportunity for exploitation in the minds of the deviant, influences the decision making process in the legal system and negatively conditions society as a whole.
False Rape is real and must be stopped through tougher laws!
Support lawmakers who support change!
"I was standing right next to him at a party one time and didn't bother asking for his autograph."
But then you followed him into the bathroom? ;)
From what I know on the Big Ben indecent right after she left the bathroom and went to a cop, the cop asked her "DID HE RAPE YOU?"
Her answer....
"NO"
Also NONE of his DNA was found on her.
To me this is PROOF that she WAS NOT RAPED!
The media just does not want to put the real facts out there.
What more needs to be said?
Anon at 2:05: My summary in the post about what she said in her three statements was taken from (1) the news report about her initial interview with the cop -- and you are correct in what you've said, and (2) my own review of her two subsequent written statements. What I wrote is accurate, and it shows that her story changed. As I said, it was the evolving narrative of a woman groping for victimhood.
I live in pittsburgh and I stopped getting the post gazette because of a hit job they did on a guy I grew up with a while back.
I urge anyone that cares about the rights of guys and themselves to hit these scum where it hurts and do not subscribe to their trash.
Also it has been an all day everyday HATE FEST on Big Ben here.
It has totally turned me off to nfl as well.
I have better things to do with my time and there are much better ways of spending my hard earned money than helping to support people who hate men.
Thanks Pierce!
And thanks again for writing about Big Ben.
I'm here in pittsburgh and the amount of hate for Big Ben is unreal.
To Anon at 2:15 and Anon at 2:17: Your town eats quarterbacks alive for irrational reasons -- it was just a matter of time before they attacked this guy.
Archivist said...
Chef Snark: "This is how I define consent and rape - because it's not the man's duty to read the woman's mind and know that, although she is saying 'yes', what she MEANS is 'no'.
Let's get this straight -- the Chef is correct: consent is judged from the perspective of the male. If he reasonably believed there was consent, THERE WAS CONSENT. That's not MY rule; it's EVERYBODY'S rule. It's the law
I, too read her 'evolving narrative". I've been accused of lying about my own case because of slight changes in my own narrative.
I was not lying. I was not drunk when first interviewed, and not trying to remember something through a drunken haze later.
Perhaps the 'demonizing' of Ben Roethlisberger comes from other 'reasonable' men's perspective who don't view his judgement of consent "reasonable".
What man calls a willing woman a tease?
A tease is a woman who seems willing but is not. To call a woman a tease is to complain or hold a woman accountable for not delivering her promise.
That's my own reasonable perspective anyway.
If a man's body guard sked me if I'd been raped (...why prompted THAT question, anyway?) as I was emerging from the situation, as a self preserving person, I probably would have said no, as well.
Saying yes might have caused him to detain me, trying to convince or threaten me not to tell. He might have seen himself as protecting his employer's interests by intimidation. From the cursing and name calling he later resigned over, it's obvious his concern did not lie with whether or not the woman had been raped.
Far, far, far from showing a 'rape culture' in this country, this demonization proves beyond any doubt men in this country do NOT condone his behavior.
"Perhaps the 'demonizing' of Ben Roethlisberger comes from other 'reasonable' men's perspective who don't view his judgement of consent "reasonable"."
All we have to go by for what happened in that room is her statements, which read more like rape as time went on.
She was very clear in all of her statements that there was no resistance or protest once the sex began, and he never removed her clothing or threatened her in any way. All she ever described was cold feet. "He said it was okay" apparently was enough to persuade her to have sex -- and in her case, I suspect that she doesn't need much pursuasion!
Her statements kept getting more and more convenient for her, but that just makes her less credible. The reason people believe her is because he had a prior allegation from another non-credible source.
"If a man's body guard sked me if I'd been raped (...why prompted THAT question, anyway?) as I was emerging from the situation, as a self preserving person, I probably would have said no, as well."
She told a police officer that she was not raped. She told him she didn't know if they had sex.
". . . this demonization proves beyond any doubt men in this country do NOT condone his behavior."
What behavior is that? Two drunks engaging in sex play, they go back into a private room, one accuses the other of rape -- there's not even evidence they had sex, and her changing statements make her look like a liar.
It's either rape or it isn't. There's no continuum of behavior. All indications here point to not rape.
What people object to is a wealthy athlete cajoling a willing stranger to have sex just for his own pleasure, not intending to ever see her again. There's a tendency to confuse that with rape, and it isn't.
By the way, I hate the hook-up lifestyle that raunch feminism promotes. THAT'S what this was.
Anon at 3:54: I agree. My own suspicion is that people are more willing to believe celebrities did not rape than average men, but when these allegations happen twice -- celebrities, look out. People assume there has to be something to the allegations.
All this Rape hysteria is serving it's purpose...To "Empower" the Gender/Raunch community.
To all of the men who say Roethlisberger is no FRA poster boy… I say how about this… How about if the newest strategy in the NFL is to have two FRAs made against the opposing teams star player (such that the star player receives a 6 game suspension)??
Ridiculous you say?... think again… Do you have any idea how EASY it would be to pay two False Accusers? Even if the false accusers get caught, they get 100% impunity. If a few more star players are falsely accused, say right before the playoffs, I’m willing to bet that thousands of men would change their tune over night.
Goodell’s punishment could cost Roethlisberger as much as $3.3 million. However, it is the working class men in America who have been punished more so than Roethlisberger by Goodell’s politically correct, misandric, man-gina, gesture. Goodell has sent a loud and clear message to all of society that False Rape accusations are acceptable, and men should be raped a second time after they prove the accusations false. Working class men don’t have Roethlisberger’s millions to defend themselves against false rape accusations. It would be interesting to hear what the men who were victims of the Hofstra False Rape case would have to say about Goodell’s decision?? This will be merely another chapter in the war against men. Day by day, hour by hour things continue to get worse for men in America. Twenty years from now men will look back at 2010 as the “good old days”… a time when “women weren’t that bad”.
Oh dear. I come back to find we have been paid another visit from our anonymous friend, singing his familiar refrain of 'Ben is no saint, therefore he is little better than a rapist, or at least deserves no support'.
"News flash, Nick - Ben Roethlisberger is not a 'decent' man by any standard."
Newsflash whoever you are. I wasn't suggesting Roethlisberger is a decent guy. I am sure his behaviour is often sleazy. I was mocking the author's ridiculously broad and meaningless definition of what constitutes indecent behavior. Get it?
FWIW, I don't approve of the lifestyle of the likes of Roethlisberger. I doubt I would ever be friends with a guy like him, nor would I invite him for a drink with the rest of my regulars.
But here's the thing. We are supposed to live in a free society. Just because you don't like the lifestyle of someone else does not mean they should be criminalized.
To wish persecution on others simply because you don't approve of their chosen lifestyle represents a frighteningly fascist authoritarian approach to life. Whatever happened to live and let live.
"My own suspicion is that people are more willing to believe celebrities did not rape than average men"
I agree. When it is somewhat popular and looked up to, people often don't want to believe it is true. On the other hand, if the local garbage collector is accused no-one could care less and they are only too happy to see him locked away for good.
Snark, I don't actually agree that the accuser should go to jail in this case.
It sounds to me as though she didn't intend to make a false claim, and was probably talked into it by one of her more strident female friends. Secondly, based on her statements it doesn't seem to me that she went out of her way to concoct a false story. Rather, it seems that she merely exaggerated her alleged resistance slightly as time went on. That is, she tried to fit the truth into a victimhood narrative after being pressured to come forward.
This woman doesn't really seem like the sort of pathological liar that is involved in a lot of other cases on this site. In those cases, I agree the accusers should go to prison for a long time.
And let's remember, women accused of making false allegations are entitled to the benefit of the doubt just as much as men accused of rape with insufficient evidence. Let's not go in the opposite direction and start a lynch mob hysteria against any woman suspected of being a false accuser.
As the old saying goes, 'choose your enemies carefully. One day you may come to resemble them.'
Archivist: What behavior is that? Two drunks engaging in sex play, they go back into a private room, one accuses the other of rape -- there's not even evidence they had sex, and her changing statements make her look like a liar.
Archivist - do you not know the difference between a 'private room' and a potty? A PUBLIC TOILET? One drunk AND his two body guards took an extremely drunk woman into the shitter, with the body guards refusing to allow her friends to intercede.
It would appear a lot of MEN consider that behaving badly, their 'demonizing' this 'hero', I repeat, is indicative of how much there is NOT a 'rape culture' mentality in this country.
FWO -- very interesting points.
Nick, I agree.
Anon, you are selectively taking a couple of facts (out of many more) and using them to smear Ben and imply that he may be guilty of rape.
I am not saying with 100% certainty that Roethlisberger is not guilty. But I would say, on the balance of probabilities, he is probably innocent and was effectively the victim of a false allegation.
What is appalling is the idea that someone in that position deserves to somehow still have the stigma of guilt attached to them, or deserves no support or defence whatsoever.
The fact that his bodyguard kept others out is not good, and he didn't have the right to do that. But it hardly implies rape. He may have done that simply to stop others from coming in and viewing or joining in the goings-on.
To imply that Roethlisberger must be guilty based on a couple of flimsy circumstantial facts (like the bodyguard's actions or the fact he called the woman a tease), while ignoring the mountain of other evidence showing the woman's case completely lacked credibility is a sleazy smear campaign and nothing more.
Some of the posters here seem to be candidates for the position of witchsmeller-general. They apparently have an uncanny ability to sniff out guilt when no other objective evidence exists.
This woman doesn't really seem like the sort of pathological liar that is involved in a lot of other cases on this site. In those cases, I agree the accusers should go to prison for a long time.
***
Yeah, that's what's weird about this case. She never actually accused him of rape! The real false accuser in this situation is the media.
Don't get me wrong: I think she is very, very irresponsible for running to the police to report not being raped, and obviously she has made highly misleading statements about her intentions that night. You don't follow a man around from club to club and then go hang out with him if you were offended when he called you a tease! But she was careful in how she worded her statements, so that she could not be accused of making something up.
Isn't it great that in our country you can cause that much grief to a guy an remain completely anonymous!
Even when it's likely that you are the one who is the liar and criminal!
You can just make some crap up and ruin someone's life and you do not even have to put your name behind your accusations.
Indeed, it is extraordinary that given that she never even accused him of rape in her initial statement to the police, and given that she was following him from club to club, so many people are still willing to believe that he is guilty.
I mean, if a guy is trying to force his attentions on an unwilling woman, wouldn't it be more likely the other way around? He would follow her from place to place?
Is common sense dead or something?
Anon@3:57, the problem is that a lot of people want to believe something worse happened simply because many people get excited over the prospect of bringing down a high-profile, successful individual. And other people simply get off on the damsel-in-distress titillation of it all.
We have indeed become a society of sick perverts.
I think I must have woken up in the 1950s.
People are still trying to run Ben R down as a rapist when it hasn't been established that any sex took place, never mind a rape.
Think he might be spying for the communists as well anyone?
To all those desperately in need of a crime, the words addressed to Senator McCarthy fit best. Is there any decency in you?
"People are still trying to run Ben R down as a rapist when it hasn't been established that any sex took place, never mind a rape."
Exactly.
Except, Anon at 7:38, it wasn't Sen. McCarthy who said that -- it was the attorney for the Army, Joseph Welch, in the finest moment in television history. At that time, McCarthy -- the great communist witch hunter -- was the most feared man in America. He'd gone after Hollywood and now he had brought his witch hunt to the U.S. Army. During a televised hearing he made the mistake of suggesting that a young attorny in Welch's law firm was a communist. Welch stood up to the great bully and -- and this is widely credited with turning the tide on McCarthy's fortunes. Welch's most famous line in the exchange was the following: "Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Welch became a national folk hero, and was even cast as the judge in the great courtroom film "Anatomy of a Murder" (maybe the second best "lawyer" film ever made, after "To Kill a Mockingbird," of course).
Anonymous - ”So Ben Roethlisberger IS the FRA poster boy.
[snip]
I've been laboring under the delusion that a false rape accusation is a blatant, patently false lie knowingly made by a woman.
Am I now to understand it's more 'grey' than that?
While I don't condone the acccuser's behavior in this circumstance, I do not find clear convincing evidence this woman lied. I think she honestly believed she had been raped.
That she was too drunk to be clear on all the facts does not mean she lied. I have the impression if she were to be administered a polygraph, she would pass.”
Far from EVER trying to establish Roethlisberger as some sort of Poster Boy, the real significance of this particular case is that it allows us to a well-known test-case with which we can better define the “edge” of FRA.
I don’t see any regulars here sticking up for the way in which Roethlisberger nor those with him behaved, and their actions do leave it open to interpreting the situation as a possible rape.
Likewise the behaviors of the accuser and those with her also leave things open to interpretation as non-rape (I don’t use FRA since the woman NEVER actually made an allegation of having been raped).
This is the every sort of situation where the proverbial rubber truly hits the road.
The point being made by regulars here is that, bad as HIS behavior might have been, Roethlisberger is still entitles to the presumption of his innocence until it is proven otherwise. This is no different that what is extended to the alleged perpetrators of any other crime. And, when the prosecutor comes out as announces that (in effect) there is NOT sufficient evidence to justify charging a crime, then it SHOULD be enough for those observing the case to allow that it was likely not an instance of rape. Bad behavior, drunk, bungling, regrettable sex, and completely boorish behavior after-the-act by Roethlisberger – certainly! But, it seems not to have bee rape.
And, in the final analysis, that is why we chose to stick up for Roethlisberger, seeing him as a proxy for other men in similar circumstance. Bad, but not criminal behavior should never expose one to felony charges and complete social ruination out of a misplaced (however sincere) since that that person must have done something wrong.
Roethlisberger is certainly no poster boy, nor in any sense a hero to men and woman concerned about the issue of false rape allegations. He is but an example of what you refer to as a grey area, which should not be a grey area at all, but rather the point at which we need to “cut” the black from the white, and determine what is, and what is not the crime of rape. Either there is evidence enough to charge it as that rime, or there is not.
The dislike of Roethlisberger based on his behaviors (here in, and previous) is perfectly reasonable. What is not is to continue to smear him as a rapist who got away with it (something not conclusively known, no matter how strongly you may feel), rather just a badly behaving sports celebrity. It’s not so much that Roethlisberger needs to be protected from such a smear, but rather that many other men, in similar circumstance, who do not have the same resources, absolutely DO need to be protected.
SL said: "Roethlisberger is still entitle[d] to the presumption of his innocence until it is proven otherwise. This is no different that what is extended to the alleged perpetrators of any other crime."
I think I could make a plausible argument that for rape charges, there's an even greater need to insist on treating the presumptively innocent as exactly what they are. Rape charges often don't lend itself to clear resolutions. They often leave a residue of doubt about what happened -- a stain, a stigma that lasts longer than the stigma for any other serious crime (and let's be honest, it's rare that a man is falsely accused of murder -- for a variety of reasons that's a crime much more difficult to lie about).
This isn't a false rape charge. There is no rape claim at all.
How can you say that it is false, when there is no claim of rape?
Both the girl and the DA specifically did NOT claim rape.
FalseRapeSociety does a disservice by framing this as a false rape claim. There are false rape claims. this isn't one of them.
In fact, many people have claimed it to be rape.
One of the things we draw attention to here, is the stigma that men receive after being falsely accused.
It is not just a site drawing attention to people having been falsely CHARGED with rape.
Even if the girl did not say it was rape, there are others who HAVE, and they are the false accusers. He is still a falsely accused man, so defending him is perfectly in line with this site's purpose.
This anonymous idiot is just trolling. Do you notice he does the same thing over and over again? He turns up on one thread, gets swatted down, then pisses off. Then he turns up on another thread posting the same obtuse nonsense that has already been discredited elsewhere.
As for the claims about whether Roethlisberger is a 'poster boy' for FRA, this is juvenile nonsense. Anyone who is not a moron could realize that miscarriages of justice or due process do not just conveniently happen to individuals who fit some ideal spin-driven image of a righteous martyr.
What does he imagine actually happens? That we have some vast FRA marketing machine busy at work crafting an image of the ideal FRA victim for public relations purpose. Then after finding this virtuous candidate, we encourage them to go out and find some woman likely to make a FRA. Then voila. We have our new poster boy.
If one were to apply that same argument to other issues, you could say of a woman who was raped 'oh well, she was no Mother Teresa. Not exactly a poster girl for rape victims is she!'.
Or if a black man was lynched: 'oh well, he did have a few small criminal convictions. Not exactly a poster boy for lynchings is he!'.
And it doesn't seem to occur to this fuckwit that people who have a reputation as being less than saintly are more vulnerable to false allegations, so if anything are in greater need of defense and advocacy.
For example, if someone was to frame an innocent person for a robbery they had committed, who do you suppose they would finger? The pillar of the community? No, of course not. More likely they would accuse someone which a checkered past.
News Flash!!!... PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN RAPED HAVE NO NEED TO CHANGE THEIR STORY. THEY SIMPLY NEED TO SAY THEY WERE RAPED, EXPLAIN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND STICK TO THEIR STORY.
News Flash!!!... WHEN ANYBODY IS RAPED, THERE IS DNA EVIDENCE (even if a condom is used there is still hair, skin, clothing fibers, Etcetera).
The Georgia accuser changed her story... And, there was NO DNA evidence.
The above are FACTS that you can not spin.
"This isn't a false rape charge. There is no rape claim at all."
The young woman accused Mr. Roethlisberger of rape. Assertions that she never accused him are wrong. She did, and the police investigated whether rape, not some lesser sexual assault, occurred. The D.A. revealed on April 12 that there wasn't even probable cause to arrest him.
ForiegnWomenOnly
I like your last comment...I totally agree with it.
And I took a look at your website and I like it also!
Thanks for putting it together.
Post a Comment