by Connie Chastain*
Earlier this month, Salon.com ran a "human interest" story in its "Life Stories" section titled "Haunted by the Morning After." A first-person narrative by Elizabeth Kennedy (which is a pseudonym), the piece tells the story of a high school party at which Ms. Kennedy may or may not have been raped. She doesn't really know for sure; she was too drunk to remember.
What happened, in a nutshell, is that Ms.Kennedy went to a party with friends, drank too much and hit on a guy. They traipsed into the woods together and made out. After sending the boy mixed messages about having sex, she passed out. When she awakened to the sound of her friends calling her, she was half undressed and the boy, naked, was passed out beside her.
She couldn't remember what happened, but it must've been bad because she was a basket case the next day, a state that lasted on into her freshman year of college. She saw a therapist for her depression; the therapist concluded that she had been raped. There was some comfort in the diagnosis, but Ms. Kennedy wasn't sure that was truly what happened. In any case, through her early twenties she engaged in boozy, highly unsatisfying hookups until at age 26 she'd had enough and quit drinking.
On the surface, Ms. Kennedy's experience is a cautionary tale with an uplifting ending -- wayward girl faces some unpleasant truths and takes responsibility for herself, her actions, her life. But that's only part of the story.
I was fascinated and appalled when I first read it. Part of it is generational, I'm sure. In my high school days, nobody "did it" just for fun. Sometimes girls with long-term steady boyfriends would give in, in a moment of weakness, but they didn't write human interest stories about it, and only their closest confidants knew.
But since those days, feminism and the sexual revolution have worked their evil spells, and "hook ups" are common even in high school. Our whole culture has become sexualized, starting with preschool girls in makeup and sexy costumes strutting on a pageant stage, to sex-ed in the schools, and from there moving into every aspect of the popular culture, particularly movies, television, and now the Internet.
Women, so feminism says, should be in charge of their own sexuality. In the days of second wave feminism, that meant taking control of a woman's sexuality from men, mainly her husband, so that she decided when and if to have sex, permit pregnancy, and have children.
Somehow, now, it has come to mean that women should be able to be as promiscuous as men -- at least, to the extent they believe men are promiscuous -- without harm to their reputation and, significantly, to their chances at marriage, when they're ready.
But evidently there is enough of a stigma left, in some circles (Ms. Kennedy is from a Catholic family and attended Catholic schools) that women can feel morning-after regret. Sometimes this regret morphs into accusations of rape. By now, readers of this blog are familiar with how and why that happens.
In Ms. Kennedy's case, it didn't end in a rape accusation, but it easily could have.
One thing that stands out about her tale is that it is liberally sprinkled with her attempts to give herself the benefit of the doubt -- to present her inexperience and naiveté, which are evidently supposed to absolve her of responsibility for her part in her predicament.
In fact, she begins the piece with a bid for sympathy, putting forth the possibility that she'd been raped in the very first sentence and describing her bouts of suicidal depression that presumably resulted from it. Excuses and pre-emptive explanations continue throughout her narrative -- she got so drunk the night of the party because she was "selectively bulimic in those days" (bulimia being a female malady) and drank on an empty stomach at the party. She gives some backstory about never having had "the talk" with her mother, about her fascination with her friends' tales of their sexcapades.
The self-absolvement continues in her recounting of the encounter with "Tony," who may or may not have raped her.
I must admit I was surprised at the comments following the story at Salon. Some took a practical, level-headed view of her predicament, declared it was not rape, and put the responsibility for her problem squarely where it lay. Nevertheless, there were many poor-little-thing sentiments that raveled my patience.
Whatever she was trying to accomplish by writing the story and having it published, here's the bottom line for me: She got herself drunk. She initially hit on the guy. She asked him for sex once. She answered in the affirmative when he asked her if she still wanted to.
Read that one again. He. Asked. Her. And. She. Said. Yes. That is consent. Consensual sex is not rape.
It is a rather depressing story, and I have to wonder how many other young women in our permissive society have similarly ruined their lives. About the only good thing to come out of this one, to me, is that she didn't report the boy to the police and get him thrown in prison for thirty years.
*Connie is a member of the FRS team whose column appears here every Friday. Her blog is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
44 comments:
Connie, Connie, Connie -- a brilliantly written and perceptive piece. Thank you!
It is a scientific fact that men and women view casual sex differently, and women feel remorse more than men following one-night stands. A study -- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625092023.htm -- shows how common remorse is for women following one-night stands: "Overall women’s feelings were more negative than men’s [about one-night stand casual sex]. Eighty per cent of men had overall positive feelings about the experience compared to 54 per cent of women. . . . . The predominant negative feeling reported by women was regret at having been 'used'. Women were also more likely to feel that they had let themselves down and were worried about the potential damage to their reputation if other people found out. Women found the experience less sexually satisfying and, contrary to popular belief, they did not seem to view taking part in casual sex as a prelude to long-term relationships."
So what does that mean for this blog? Well, one of the common motives cited by experts for false rape claims is "remorse after an impulsive sexual fling . . . ." Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case, S. Taylor, K.C. Johnson at 375 (2007).
Unfortunately, there are countless sexual assault "counselors," not to mention girlfriends majoring in Gender Studies, ready to convince a girl who passed out and might have had sex and who feels "used" -- that she was "raped."
Expanding the definition of "rape" to include "might have done it" experiences trivializes a vile act that should only be said to occur when it really did.
I've long advocated better education for both our young women and young men about what "consent" really means, and about how men and women view casual hook-ups very differently. Unfortunately, progressives teach that men and women are exactly the same -- ignoring the biological urge men feel to spread their seed, and the fact that women naturally are more selective about partners because, duh, they're the ones who get pregnant. Ain't rocket science. It's common sense, something in short supply when it comes to things that have become way too politicized, like rape.
The girl was already depressed to start with.
This experience gave her something other than herself to blame it on. This was the beginning of her 'hook up' career, not the cause of it. She was bound to be acting out on her depression via 'hook ups'. The first one was facilitated with blinding drunkeness.
This is a study in the need for better care of depression and mental problems, and has nothing to do with rape.
Acting out on one's depression by having indiscriminate sex only fuels the problem, which is in turn blamed on the "rapist" instead of the depression.
Then the advocates can feed the depression further by blaming it on 'rape culture', since they are inadequate in dealing with mental problems.
http://shrink4men.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/false-allegations-false-memories-and-false-remorse-meredith-maran/
MUST read.
Does anyone please have a link to the Salon article? I looked but couldn't find it.
Designer rape. It's already here.
A consensual act on Friday night.
A full-blown false rape accusation Monday morning.
She thinks that she has the 'right' to change her mind.
There is no such thing as consensual, heterosexual sex anymore.
Men beware.
Link to the Salon story:
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2010/09/02/was_i_really_raped/index.html
Let me try that Salon link again:
http://tinyurl.com/256wnz8
We can read all the studies we want, but the truth is women will make decisions just like everyone else. I have seen many things in my day and one of those things is that women do have casual sex. I have dated married women, older, younger and from all walks of life.
Women are not the problem in most cases, but rather a broken, corrupt legal system that exploits the lie. Once the FRA lie is told, it cant be taken back. If the woman tries to change her story or renege, the prosecution will threaten her with criminal charges.
Thanks Connie, great work.
Arod99k - "Women are not the problem in most cases, but rather a broken, corrupt legal system that exploits the lie. Once the FRA lie is told, it cant be taken back. If the woman tries to change her story or renege, the prosecution will threaten her with criminal charges."
Reality check time.
Look at all the accounts of police 9and prosecution) "breaking down" the women's lies. If what you say were actually true, we'd not be seeing so many of these stories coming out as they would have all been coerced not into recanting, but rather into taking the case forward.
readily observable reality tends to belie this notion of your's (and S.'s - the gender/raunch anti-LE rant guy) that only LE is to blame.
It is the women who decide to tell the lies that are to blame. They chose, of their own damned free wills to do so. But for them making the choice to do so, LE wouldn't even be involved to either get it right, nor to f*ck it up. It is the lying women who are, first and foremost, who are to blame. Despite the BS that S has continually posted, there is no way for LE to "profit" from rape investigations nor prosecutions. Doing the work always costs them money from their budgets.
This stuff gets old! S has said he doesn't even blame the women who accused him, just the cops who didn't do what he thought they should so as to clear his name. By that twisted logic, there is no reason to ever charge any women with making an FRA. Just forgive her, and blame the cops instead. Do you not get how ridiculous that sounds? Do you really care about the issue of FRA's, or is your agenda simply to bash cops using what ever issue is most convenient?
Comments like "Women are not the problem in most cases..." certainly makes it seem as though you're just in it to blame the cops.
"It is the women who decide to tell the lies that are to blame. They chose, of their own damned free wills to do so."
Exactly.
One thing we need to hold law enforcement accountable for, is following the law. In the U.S. (for now at least!) when accused of a crime, first the situation is investigated to see who even is possibly involved, then the accused is questioned (not arrested!), then if there is probability of guilt, arrested, and then tried in court (if it even goes that far). But in the mean time, the accused is not to be held for a excessive length of time or given excessive bail.
However (not unlike mainland Europe for many arrests) when it comes to rape, here's the steps they take against men: arrest, investigate, question, sit in jail due to excessive bail, and THEN trial.
If prosecutors and law enforcement who wanted to get a "tough on crime" reputation, were stopped from arresting men on a whim of a vindictive woman, then women may have less of an incentive to accuse men of rape. If rape liars knew that a bullshit accusation wasn't enough to carry out their evil deeds, then it may deter some of them at least.
slwerner and I are on the same page. LE most often does a great job with rape claims. To stop false rape claims, we need to go to the source, the false rape liars.
Anonymous - "If rape liars knew that a bullshit accusation wasn't enough to carry out their evil deeds, then it may deter some of them at least."
This would hold for those who plan-out an FRA for revenge or to gain advantage (as in those cases where FRA's were attempted in custody battles), but not in those cases where FRA began in haste - such as Danmell Ndonye's Hofstra-Hoax situation.
In that case, as with Biurny Peguero Gonzalas, and so many other FRA-as-coverup cases, the intent was not to get a man into trouble, just to get themselves out of trouble; so, that a man might or might not be arrested on their word alone never factored in at all. Even Crystal Mangum was just trying to avoid being arrested. In so many of these sorts of cases, the liar never even considered that a real flesh-and-blood man might be arrested or even imprisoned.
When attention or victim compensation money is the goal, they don't need for a man to be arrested either, so it's unlikely that an investigate-before-arrest would be a deterrent. In such cases, simply an "investigate thoroughly" policy along with a "MUST charge for false reporting" would be what would deter such lies. The chance of being found out, and having to face some real consequences (even if only a plea to a misdemeanor, as it remains on their record) are more likely in most cases to impact their decisions much more than would the relative likelihood of someone being arrested.
This, of course, leads to the need for there to be felony level charges available under which to charge false accusers (especially those that cause significant harms).
And, I would add, having to register as a sex offender (it is, after all, a sex-crime related offense - if public indecency can land one on the registry...) or a comparable registry would also go a long way towards creating a credible deterrent to FRA's.
Archivist - "LE most often does a great job with rape claims. To stop false rape claims, we need to go to the source, the false rape liars."
I'm all for meaningful targeted reforms for LE - especially those that would lead to "investigate-before-arrest" policies, and the reinstitution of the demand for corroborating evidence. There also needs to be some reform of Rape Shield Laws to prevent abuses of them.
Yet, this idea floating around that LE is always the prime culprit just doesn't work for me. They get it right some times, and some times they fail - spectacularly. But, what is more likely needed is "education" of officers and investigators as to how to better handle rape allegations and investigations. A part of that would be to draw distinctions between those instance where they succeed, and those where they fail.
Quite often, the "failures" of police (especially of younger officers), come not so much from malice, nor for some effort to adhere to an imagined alliance with gender-feminists, but from the chivalrous white-knighting inclinations of those who enter LE. They are, after all, some of the most anti-feminist guy’s one will ever meet. The problem is that such white-knights can be far worse than your typical gender-feminist when it comes to “protecting” women. That needs to be trained right out of them.
From what I can tell, LE weeds out the vast majority of nonsense claims. Without that winnowing process, false rape claims would be a major news story. As it is, they are not on the general public's radar except for high profile cases.
"This would hold for those who plan-out an FRA for revenge or to gain advantage (as in those cases where FRA's were attempted in custody battles), but not in those cases where FRA began in haste - such as Danmell Ndonye's Hofstra-Hoax situation."
That may be true, but it would still hold for about a third of false rape accusations. Which is a significant number of crimes.
"I'm all for meaningful targeted reforms for LE - especially those that would lead to "investigate-before-arrest" policies, and the reinstitution of the demand for corroborating evidence. There also needs to be some reform of Rape Shield Laws to prevent abuses of them."
I completely agree, but let's not ignore how irrational and emotional most people are when it comes to the subject of rape. Putting aside changes in the law making prosecution without evidence possible. If during the course of an investigation, the alleged perpetrator rapes again, everyone including the press, the victim's family, and people all across the political spectrum, would incite a fantastic maelstrom of near-Biblical wrath against the police. Which is likely to result with officers being suspended, sheriffs losing re-elections, etc. Otoh, if during the course of a murder investigation, the suspect kills someone else, unless the victim was popular or important, most people would care less.
"From what I can tell, LE weeds out the vast majority of nonsense claims. Without that winnowing process, false rape claims would be a major news story. As it is, they are not on the general public's radar except for high profile cases."
I agree. However, it's not due to having an "alliance" with feminism, or to intentionally "misinform" the public. Disposing of bogus claims quietly serves at least two purposes. Firstly, it minimizes the damage to the accused. Secondly, it minimizes any complaints or questions as to why they didn't believe the accuser or take the case further.
Slwerner
I totally agree about false accusers having to register as sex offenders.
I am against the sex offender registry but as long as it exists false accusers should be on it for life.
Law enforcment is the problem !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They dont file charges agains false Rape accusers. You have to many Nifongs trying to get reelected to office.
Law Enforcement would prefer to jail men and let the little liar whore like Crystal Magnum with the semen of four diffrent other men go free.
Again Law enforcement is the problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Specific Types of Misconduct: Allegations and Court Findings
Allegations. Just over two‐thirds of appeal and civil suit cases involved claims of prosecutorial misconduct relating to improper arguments and questioning by the prosecutor during the trial. Examples of such arguments included making questionable/mistaken inferences regarding forensic evidence introduced at trial and making inflammatory/improper remarks in closing arguments such as “you should have seen the evidence we kept out.”
More than one‐third (38%) of misconduct allegations involved Brady violations by the prosecutors – withholding potentially exculpatory evidence such as knowledge of alternative suspects and forensic science evidence that may have weakened the prosecution’s case. Eight percent of cases involved Batson claims—alleging that the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge to dismiss a juror, based solely on his/her race. Other less frequently recorded misconduct allegations were included in an ‘other’ category. Some of these issues included claims of eliciting perjured testimony, malicious prosecution, destruction of evidence, fabrication of evidence, and improper use of jailhouse snitches.
False confessions and admissions are a major cause of injustice in the United States, involved in about 25% of the wrongful convictions overturned by DNA testing. Among the many defendants who gave false confessions or admissions to crimes they didn’t commit, 17 pled guilty — usually seeking to avoid the potential for a long sentence (or a death sentence) for a crime they didn’t commit.
The 19 individuals listed below pled guilty to crimes they didn’t commit and served a combined total of more than 100 years in prison before they were exonerated:
Larry Bostic served three years in Florida prison after pleading guilty to a rape he did not commit. He has said he was threatened with a life sentence and coerced to plead guilty by the prosecutor and his court-appointed attorney.
Keith Brown falsely confessed and pled guilty to a North Carolina rape in 1993. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison but was freed after DNA proved his innocence in 1997.
John Dixon pled guilty to a rape he didn’t commit and spent 10 years in New Jersey prison before DNA testing proved his innocence. After pleading guilty, he asked the judge to withdraw his plea and hold a trial, but the motion was denied and he was sentenced to 45 years in prison.
Anthony Gray falsely confessed to a Maryland rape after interrogating officers told him that two other men had implicated him. He would plead guilty and serve seven years in prison before DNA testing proved his innocence.
Eugene Henton served 18 months in Texas prison for a 1984 sexual assault he didn’t commit. He pled guilty in exchange for an 18-month sentence and was freed after serving his sentence. Once free, Henton continued to seek DNA testing in his case and finally obtained the tests that proved his innocence in 2006.
William Kelly pled guilty to third-degree murder for allegedly killing a 25-year-old woman in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. He served two years in prison before DNA testing linked another man to the killing, as well as other murders, clearing Kelly. He was freed in 1993.
Michael Marshall pled guilty in 2008 to stealing a truck in Georgia after he was identified by an eyewitness. He was sentenced to ten years in prison, but was freed in December 2009 after DNA testing obtained by the Georgia Innocence Project proved his innocence and pointed to the identity of the real perpetrator.
Christopher Ochoa falsely confessed and pled guilty to murder in Texas that he didn’t commit. He testified against his co-defendant to avoid a possible death sentence, and served nearly 12 years in prison before DNA testing led to his exoneration – and also identified the real perpetrator in the case.
James Ochoa pled guilty to a 2005 California carjacking he didn’t commit to avoid a possible sentence of 25 years to life if convicted at trial. Ten months after his conviction, DNA testing proved his innocence and implicated the real perpetrator of the crime.
Steven Phillips was convicted of a string of sexual assaults in Texas in 1982 and 1983 that DNA now shows he didn’t commit. After a jury convicted him of two crimes based on eyewitness misidentification, Phillips plead guilty to nine additional crimes to avoid what amounted to a life sentence. DNA testing finally led to his exoneration – and pointed to the identity of the real perpetrator – 25 years later.
Jerry Frank Townsend, a man with severe mental disabilities, falsely confessed and pled guilty to six murders and one rape in Florida in the 1970s and was sentenced to life in prison. He served nearly 22 years before DNA testing led to his exoneration.
David Vasquez served four years in prison for a 1984 Virginia murder he didn’t commit. Vasquez, who is borderline mentally impaired, allegedly made a false admissions of guilt during a police interrogation and pled guilty in exchange for a 35-year sentence. He was exonerated in 1989.
Arthur Lee Whitfield was charged with two Norfolk, Virginia, rapes in 1981. He was misidentified by both victims and after being convicted of the first rape he pled guilty to the second in exchange for a lighter sentence. He served more than 22 years before DNA testing proved his innocence and led to his freedom.
Thomas Winslow and five others – Joseph White, Ada Taylor, Debra Sheldon, Kathy Gonzalez and James Dean – were convicted in Nebraska in 1989 of a murder they didn’t commit. Five of the six defendants – all except White – pled guilty to the crime. Taylor, Sheldon, Gonzalez and Dean falsely confessed and testified against White at his trial. The six defendants were exonerated when DNA testing conducted in 2008 proved their innocence and pointed to the identity of the actual perpetrator.
Steven Phillips was convicted of a string of sexual assaults in Texas in 1982 and 1983 that DNA now shows he didn’t commit. After a jury convicted him of two crimes based on eyewitness misidentification, Phillips plead guilty to nine additional crimes to avoid what amounted to a life sentence. DNA testing finally led to his exoneration – and pointed to the identity of the real perpetrator – 25 years later.
Jerry Frank Townsend, a man with severe mental disabilities, falsely confessed and pled guilty to six murders and one rape in Florida in the 1970s and was sentenced to life in prison. He served nearly 22 years before DNA testing led to his exoneration.
David Vasquez served four years in prison for a 1984 Virginia murder he didn’t commit. Vasquez, who is borderline mentally impaired, allegedly made a false admissions of guilt during a police interrogation and pled guilty in exchange for a 35-year sentence. He was exonerated in 1989.
Arthur Lee Whitfield was charged with two Norfolk, Virginia, rapes in 1981. He was misidentified by both victims and after being convicted of the first rape he pled guilty to the second in exchange for a lighter sentence. He served more than 22 years before DNA testing proved his innocence and led to his freedom.
Thomas Winslow and five others – Joseph White, Ada Taylor, Debra Sheldon, Kathy Gonzalez and James Dean – were convicted in Nebraska in 1989 of a murder they didn’t commit. Five of the six defendants – all except White – pled guilty to the crime. Taylor, Sheldon, Gonzalez and Dean falsely confessed and testified against White at his trial. The six defendants were exonerated when DNA testing conducted in 2008 proved their innocence and pointed to the identity of the actual perpetrator.
"Law enforcment is the problem !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They dont file charges agains false Rape accusers. You have to many Nifongs trying to get reelected to office."
Because anything is true if you use enough exclamation points?
Law enforcement often doesn't file a complaint because it wouldn't do anything except get the falsely accused's name in the papers.
Also, Nifong was a prosecutor, not a cop. And it's the prosecutors, not the police, who ultimately decide who is charged with what. Although, I think prosecutors should be more aggressive against false rape accusations, the law itself doesn't give them much incentive. It's a huge effort to try to prove what is in most jurisdictions a misdemeanor with very little penalty.
The answer to this problem is to felonize false rape accusations.
The Gender / Raunch community foster perversion and maintain a sustained attack on heterosexuals.
The white upper crust of society which fill the ranks of Gender /Raunch, are not socialists or communists..it is in fact capitalism that fuels their decadance.
Now I'm not against capitalism, but to say the Gender / Raunch community is a socialist or communist cirlcle...is missinformed.
Arod99k - "Law enforcment is the problem !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Your pet theory that Law Enforcement is THE PROBLEM, and it's corollary notion that women who make the false allegations are, therefore, NOT THE PROBLEM, fails to address a few important points in the FRA issue.
Did you happen to catch the picture of the lynched black men linked a few threads back as a response to Catherine Comins? What don’t you see in that picture? Here’s a hint – Law Enforcement!
You see, woman have been making allegations of rape that don’t even involve police or prosecutors for time immemorial, and men (who had nothing to do with LE took it upon themselves to seek “justice”). It’s hard to know just how many lynching have been due to FRA’s, but it’s probable that a significant portion have been. And, this extends way, way beyond black men in the American South. At any point in history, a woman caught out in infidelity could be expected to try to blame her actions on her lover alone.
In more recent history, we have cases of wives caught in filgrande dilecto who immediately cried rape. I know of two cases wherein the husband reacted by killing his wife’s lover, believing him to have been a rapist.
We’ve also seen instances where innocent men have been murdered by friends/family of the false accuser – even with no report ever being made to police.
There are even cases where innocent men are harassed, even to death, by the public around them – whether police and prosecutors charged them or not; and even where no report was made to police (like the women who put her allegation on a social networking site, leading to the innocent victims being seriously harassed).
Yet, you insist that ”Woman are not the problem in most cases”? How are you going to shift the blame away from the lying women to LE in those cases where LE wasn’t even involved?
And, all that is ignoring the many cases wherein LE gets it right, start to finish. But, I guess you have a way to excuse the women and blame LE instead in those case as well?
You know, Arod99k, the primary difference between you and I is that I have a problem with whomever is in any way a part of the FRA problem – the liars, the cultural influences which may guide them, the chivalrous white-knights who stick up for them and/or do their bidding, those in LE who fail to do their jobs properly, the press who help to hide the extent of the problem, and anyone who tries to down-play the issue. I excuse no one who is culpable.
But you? You only blame Law Enforcement – Ever! Why, it’s almost as if FRA’s are merely a vehicle for you bash LE.
Slwerner, you don't see law enforcemnt in that picture because they are not protecting the innocent. They should be there busting up the mob/Klan, and arresting the sourse of the faulty and inflamatroy rhetoric, But yer right, they were nowhere to be seen in that picture.
Ms. Chastain, I appreciate all you've done to speak out against false rape claims, and I respect your religious beliefs, so long as you respect that not everyone shares your beliefs. But I fear that much of what you say in this post is part of the problem rather than the solution. I respect people of both sexes who wish to wait for marriage to engage in sexual intercourse, but implying that those who don't are dirty and immoral, or that the sexual revolution was "evil", only adds to the number of women who feel guilt, shame and morning after regret. That makes them more likely to seek revenge against the men with whom they previously enjoyed sexual activity.
Archivist it may be "a scientific fact that men and women view casual sex differently, and women feel remorse more than men following one-night stands" but there is no proof that that is inherent or that it couldn't be changed by changing the culture. Making women feel more comfortable about their sexuality, including what they perceive as mistakes in the sex and dating game might make this discrepancy less. It is proper to warn men about the risks involved with casual sex, just as it is proper to warn people traveling to certain countries of the risks of being victims of terrorism, but we don't have to accept that it will always be that way.
Unfortunately, there are countless sexual assault "counselors," not to mention girlfriends majoring in Gender Studies, ready to convince a girl who passed out and might have had sex and who feels "used" -- that she was "raped."
That's right so let's not play into their hands. It's up to people on our side to convince her she wasn't used. She participated in a mutually pleasurable experience. It was fun while it lasted. It didn't work out quite how she hoped, but that's life and if she moves on everything will be fine. That is the message people trying to end the false rape epidemic need to get out to women.
The fact is, cops are themselves accused of rape frequently, falsely and otherwise. I don't believe they are involved in conspiracies, unless those conspiracies target their own members.
I don't believe the majority of cops do a good job. I don't know the majority of cops, or the majority of rape accusations.
None of us do - that information is a big fat secret.
My own experience was the female cop was all about believing the victim.
And that was it. All she wrote.
It may not be the 'majority' way these things go, but it was my experience. Someday I hope to post the exact records of my case for YOU to judge whether or not the noble detective did her job or not. It's all there in black and white.
My personal opinion is it's a crap shoot. If you appeal to the cop for whatever reason, you get a pass. If you don't - you better have enough money for the damn finest attorney in the state. Or kiss your ass good bye.
But then, what do I know? I'm obviously not a majority.
Meadester, thank you for your comments. I realize not everyone shares my religious beliefs but I am convinced society would have fewer problems if more people were influenced by the moral standards religion produces and that once held sway in society.
I don't think I've implied that people who engage in premarital sex are dirty or immoral; those words don't appear in my analysis of Ms. Kennedy's story. To me, they're applicable to behaviors or deeds, not people. Behavior that results in beneficialness is good, moral; that which results in damage or destructiveness is evil and immoral.
If a person does something that makes them feel guilt, shame or regret, perhaps it is because they know that what they did was not beneficial, in which case, those feelings are quite appropriate and may be a deterrant in the future. But regardless of how they may feel, people have an obligation to not do what they know is wrong, and a woman accusing a man of rape when she was not raped is wrong, destructive and immoral, just as rape itself is.
In my opinion, the sexual revolution was extremely destructive because it was intended to be. Along with feminism, it aimed for the destruction of the natural family -- man and woman married to each other and their biological children, which is the foundation of our culture. It is a continuing effort that has thus far been dreadfully successful, with equally dreadful side effects -- declining educational standards, shacking up, hooking up, illegitimacy, generational poverty and dependency, rampant drug use and crime...
When I was a little girl, and as late as my teenage years, we went to bed at night not only with the doors unlocked and standing open, but the screen doors unlatched. No, everything wasn't perfect back then and yes, some things are better now, but when I look at the destructiveness inflicted on society today, my belief is that the causes are evil or immoral. How could such damage result from good? And when I track back to see what the causes are, nearly all relate in some way to the targeted destruction of the family.
That's the way I see it. It may be a bit simplistic, but I don't think it's erroneous.
Meadester, thank you for your comments. I realize not everyone shares my religious beliefs but I am convinced society would have fewer problems if more people were influenced by the moral standards religion produces and that once held sway in society.
I don't think I've implied that people who engage in premarital sex are dirty or immoral; those words don't appear in my analysis of Ms. Kennedy's story. To me, they're applicable to behaviors or deeds, not people. Behavior that results in beneficialness is good, moral; that which results in damage or destructiveness is evil and immoral.
If a person does something that makes them feel guilt, shame or regret, perhaps it is because they know that what they did was not beneficial, in which case, those feelings are quite appropriate and may be a deterrant in the future. But regardless of how they may feel, people have an obligation to not do what they know is wrong, and a woman accusing a man of rape when she was not raped is wrong, destructive and immoral, just as rape itself is.
In my opinion, the sexual revolution was extremely destructive because it was intended to be. Along with feminism, it aimed for the destruction of the natural family -- man and woman married to each other and their biological children, which is the foundation of our culture. It is a continuing effort that has thus far been dreadfully successful, with equally dreadful side effects -- declining educational standards, shacking up, hooking up, illegitimacy, generational poverty and dependency, rampant drug use and crime...
When I was a little girl, and as late as my teenage years, we went to bed at night not only with the doors unlocked and standing open, but the screen doors unlatched. No, everything wasn't perfect back then and yes, some things are better now, but when I look at the destructiveness inflicted on society today, my belief is that the causes are evil or immoral. How could such damage result from good? And when I track back to see what the causes are, nearly all relate in some way to the targeted destruction of the family.
That's the way I see it. It may be a bit simplistic, but I don't think it's erroneous.
Not sure why my comment posted twice. Sorry.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8058499/us-cop-investigated-over-fake-arrest
The above is a link to a video and story about a police officer who went to a teenage boy's house and announced that he was being arrested for sexual assault, all because the officer found out that he was having sex with the officer's stepdaughter.
That's right. The girl didn't make a false allegation. The cop simply decided all on his own to throw his weight around and act like a thug.
I agree that part of the problem is that police forces tend to have their fair share of chivalrous males who see it as their role to protect women at all costs.
But another problem is that police forces do tend to attract people who are authoritarian bullies by nature. Different occupations tend to be more likely to attract certain personality types, and the kind of person who is more inclined to join the police is too often the kind of overbearing, self-righteous, world is black-and-white, I-know-best, schoolyard bully type.
There is plenty of evidence of police thuggery, including a growing number of videos that are posted online. But another good example is the way that police departments in many states have taken to arresting people filming police or police encounters on the basis of a completely spurious interpretation of laws requiring two-party consent to recording private conversations. This is pure intimidation and bullying of citizens exercising their rights to gather evidence and expose wrongdoing by law enforcement.
On some forums like this there seems to be a certain kind of right-wing political correctness that dictates that it is not okay to criticize police, or that anyone who has a problem with police must be some kind of lefty, anarchist, ratbag.
The argument that more of the blame should be directed towards women who make the false allegations rather than law enforcement is based on the same logical flaw as those who try to explain away or minimize false allegations and wrongful convictions by pointing out that there are also many more rapes that don't result in conviction. That is, there is a difference between individual acts of wrongdoing and collective failures by society and its institutions.
If a man commits a rape, and there is not enough evidence to convict, this is an individual act committed by a deviant individual. But if the legal system starts persecuting innocent men, this is a collective failure of society and its institutions.
The exact same principle applies to this issue. If some women are manipulative liars who make up stories against innocent men, this is merely an act of deviant individuals. But if the police or the courts are too willing to believe lying women, that is a collective failure of society and its institutions to function properly.
The bottom line is that we all have to live in a world where we will come into contact with evil and unscrupulous individuals, and society cannot eliminate such individuals or protect everyone all the time. But we can at least ensure that our collective institutions run better and do not compound these risks. Liars, false accusers and rapists will always exist, unless you guys have some plan to perfect human nature or eliminate them from the gene pool. But we can at least change our public institutions to ensure they are run by better people more sympathetic to our interests.
To anyone who disagrees I ask, which of the following options do you think is more achievable?:
a) we eliminate lying women from the gene pool, human nature is perfected, and we all live happily ever after
b) we put a lot more public pressure on the police, but also legislators, courts, bureaucracies to stop screwing over innocent men
To my mind, option B looks a lot more promising than option A.
Moreover, the arguments being made here to excuse law enforcement could just as easily be used by others, (such as feminists, legislators, governments) to excuse themselves. After all, they just wanted to put in place measures that protect women. It is not their fault that individual women have abused those systems to ruin innocent men. That is the only logical conclusion if you believe that you must blame the individual, not the flawed institutions that facilitate such abuse. Just watch as our opponents throw the same excuses back in our faces.
Not giving a false accuser any pass whatsoever, but if they damn well knew they would be in trouble for lying so many would not be taking the risk.
The fact of the matter is, they damn well know they WON'T get in trouble for lying or falsely accusing.
The rub, however, lies in TRUE victims - and ther ARE plenty of TRUE victims - being threatened or silenced with threats of punishment if they cannot prove the truth.
Proving the truth is as difficult for a true victim as it is for a falsely accused person.
There are some brazen women who will stop at nothing to get what they want. There are also some brazen men who do the same.
I personally wish true stats were available, as well as court records of such crimes were available, anonymously of course, so we all to get a better idea of what really happens in crimes like this.
Rape accusations are historically he said/she said and we all hear what we want to hear.
It is a perversion of any law enforcement community to let women and girls falselly accuse guys of Rape, with impunity.
The Gender / Raunch feminist establishment "Empower" thermselves from rape,and domestic violence hysteria, and Gender / raunch quackademics are also the constructionists behind American law enforcement protocol in these same areas. Is their a conflict of interest here, of course their is, but no one dares to challenge the Gender feminist Klan.
Perverts that get "Empowered" off the perversion are not gonna correct it themselves.
Meadster says.
"I respect people of both sexes who wish to wait for marriage to engage in sexual intercourse, but implying that those who don't are dirty and immoral, or that the sexual revolution was "evil", only adds to the number of women who feel guilt, shame and morning after regret."
I SAY, OH MY GOD, you can't make women EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER feel guilt or shame for anything they do. Society must build a bubble around women to keep the super insulated from any guilt and shame they may feel, for any actions they take. Maybe if society just dopes them up on psyche meds, they will NEVER, EVER, EVER, feel any guilt or shame for anything they have ever done in their life.
Making women feels guilt or shame as a consequence for any of their actions is a cardinal sin in the Gender / Raunch construction. Women should NEVER, EVER, EVER, EVER, have to go throught such a horrible traumatic event such as feeling anything.
Gender / Raunch construction says boys can be beat to death in their sleep by a false rape accusation (and Gender / Raunch will look the other way), But it is a cardinal sin for women to have to EVER, EVER, EVER feel any sort of guilt for anything that she does.EVER!!!!
"Moreover, the arguments being made here to excuse law enforcement could just as easily be used by others, (such as feminists, legislators, governments) to excuse themselves. After all, they just wanted to put in place measures that protect women. It is not their fault that individual women have abused those systems to ruin innocent men. That is the only logical conclusion if you believe that you must blame the individual, not the flawed institutions that facilitate such abuse."
The flaw in your logic is one of false dichotomy. It's not one or the other. If you must blame the individual, the logical conclusion is that these flawed institutions must blame the individual. Which is what they are not doing. However, it's not the fault of the police that the law doesn't hold false rape accusers accountable for the gravity of their actions.
FEMINIST MYTH:
Women don't ever lie about rape.
SOCIETAL FALLOUT FROM THIS MYTH:
False rape is a right, an opportunity, a liberty and an ownership.
This twisted thinking from young women has got to be stopped. Support law makers that support
making false rape a felony. Talk to politicians, talk to judges, talk to neighbors.
Change has to come from a grass roots approach.
Anonymous at 11:31:00 AM,
Way to distort what I said beyond all recognition! Of course women should feel guilty for things they do that actually hurt people. And yes they should face the same punishments and consequences as men. I am all for changing the laws to eliminate sentencing discounts for women, to end the presumption that the man is always the aggressor in domestic violence cases. etc. I also have written my state representatives in support of a bill to more severely punish false rape claims: http://funktardtroll.blogspot.com/2009/11/two-important-upcoming-pennsylvania.html
I was speaking specifically about sexual encounters. How if women treated sexual encounters as men do, not as some disaster if he doesn't call back or if in the morning after sobering up she realizes "OMG he's not my type!" they would be less likely to make false rape claims. I'm not saying feeling regret is an excuse for false rape claims, but it can be a motive, and I'd like to take away that motive.
Meadster, nature has made women more reserved about sex (its biology), but ur suggesting society should further debauch any modesty left in American women, further force "Open Raunch culture" on them, and this will somehow deter false Rape accusations??
I say thats silly, and the only real deterent that most legal systems in the world have realised is that "charging false rape accusers" is nearly the only deterent.
Meadster. Don't engage the Raunch guy.
You know what they say...
Raunch in, raunch out.
(BTW, I agree, teach women to take responsibility for their sexual choices and don't give them the blame game out and they'll likely be forced to start accentuating the positives.)
Typhonbue
Anon@12:50, it may well be a false dichotomy. But it's not my false dichotomy. I am simply responding to the dichotomy offered by others in the first place.
Somewhere along the way, feminism morphed from a ???womens equality??? movement to a homosexual movement.
Womens studies classes now look more like a gay rally than anything that resembles womens acceptance into the work world.
Post a Comment