Monday, January 31, 2011
Classic "he said/she said" rape case ends in "not guilty" verdict for the accused former sportscaster, yet he lost his job, and his name will be forever associated with the term "rape"
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The callous indifference of the persons who dominate the public discourse about rape to the plight of the falsely accused is a blatant injustice that resonates far, far beyond the men's rights movement. Help us continue to spread the word -- tell everyone you know about this site -- and thanks, so very much, for all of your support.
"It is awful" to prosecute a 15-year-old girl who told a rape lie that got a boy arrested, says women's rights advocate
Monday, January 24, 2011
Saturday, January 22, 2011
A tale of two kinds of voyeurism: the bad kind (when Erin Andrews was victimized), and the kind no one cares about (when thousands of male athletes were victimized)
In July, 2009, a major news story broke when a video surfaced on the Internet showing attractive ESPN sportscaster Erin Andrews in the nude. Ms. Andrews had been surreptitiously videotaped without her knowledge or consent through a hotel peephole.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Sickening: How a 17-year-old 'sex offender' (he had sex with a 15 year-old) was 'cured' of his 'deviancy'
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Woman faces prison for false rape claimA WOMAN who made a false rape claim that led to a man's arrest has been warned she faces jail.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Man imprisoned 17 years for a rape he didn't commit has wages garnished for child support payments he couldn't make in prison
Barbaric penile plethysmography testing (requiring the subjects to masturbate) motivated by a desire to humiliate male sex offenders
According to University Police, the female student recanted her accusation that on Dec. 8, around 5:30 a.m. an unknown male pinned her against a tree behind Macdonough Hall and grabbed her in the vaginal area.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Is the senseless violence we've witnessed in the aftermath of such vitriol -- examples of which follow after the jump -- in any sense unexpected?
Dyksta was accused by his 41-year-old housekeeper of sexual assault, but prosecutors in California said there is not enough evidence to file charges.
In fact, the allegation was an absurdity and, in important respects, a microcosm of everything wrong with our so-called "rape culture." Dykstra may be no saint (who among us is?), but allowing this outrageous allegation even to be publicized does him a gross injustice.
Please note that the housekeeper's identity remains shielded in anonymity, the undeserved privilege of women who make unfounded or outright false sex accusations against presumptively innocent men.
According to Los Angeles County prosecutors, the housekeeper accused Dykstra of forcing her to perform oral sex while she was supposed to be cleaning his home on Saturdays.
Why do I say that this allegation is outrageous? I merely report the actual allegation. The housekeeper told authorities she "needed the job and the money so she went along with the suspect's requests rather than lose her job."
Read it again, and let it sink in.
The essence of sexual assault is the absence of consent for sexual contact. Consent for sexual contact requires an individual to be a willing participant in the act. The housekeeper's motivation for agreeing to sexual contact with Dykstra might have been a desire to keep her part-time job. Many women agree to have sex to satisfy men for any number of reasons that are not criminal, often to foster a long-term relationship with men. Many women agree to marry men to obtain financial security for themselves or their children. The mere fact that many women who engage in sex are motivated by a desire to obtain benefits other than, or in addition to, a pleasurable sexual experience for themselves does not render such women unwilling participants in the sex act, nor does it turn the sex act into a sexual assault. Such women are often every bit as, or more, willing to engage in the act as a woman who is motivated only by sexual gratification.
In this case, for example, Mr. Dykstra did not hold a gun to his housekeeper's head and force her to give him oral sex. Nor did he owe her a living. The question is simply whether she outwardly manifested a willingness to engage in the sex act, and all indications are that she did.
The housekeeper's allegation is a manifestation of an unfortunate culture that invites women to hurl injurious criminal accusations against men whenever a sex experience doesn't satisfy them for any number of reasons, with no repercussions or penalties.
In Dykstra's case, prosecutors say the woman reported the alleged incidents after Dykstra failed to make good on a $2,000 debt. Investigators said they found text messages the woman sent Dykstra asking for the money and requesting her job back. Dykstra told a reporter that the allegations were false and the woman was attempting to extort money so she could buy drugs. "If she was assaulted on Saturdays, then I'm a … ballerina dancer on Sundays," Dykstra said. "This is a maid. That's not even worth commenting on. Are you kidding me?"
News accounts here: http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/2011/01/12/No-sex-assault-charges-against-Dykstra/UPI-61131294858845/ and http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/01/lenny-dykstra-accused-of-sexual-assault-by-housekeeper.html
Manchester magistrates handed the youngster, who cannot be named for legal reasons, a 12-month referral order after she admitted one count of perverting the course of justice.
The girl told staff at her school she had been raped in Alexandra Park, Moss Side, in October.
Police officers who specialises in sex assault cases interviewed the girl, who claimed she had been grabbed from behind by a man with a knife.
She said she had been raped a number of times by the man.
Officers cordoned off a 'crime scene' and closed the park as they embarked on a major investigation.
Scenes-of-crime officers carried out a thorough forensic examination with the help of officers from the Tactical Aid Unit, who searched the area by fingertip.
The search was so detailed officers had to guard the scene overnight.
Detectives also spent hours trawling through CCTV cameras in the area.
The girl was video-interviewed by more specially-trained officers and offered help by St Mary's Sexual Assault Referral Centre.
But her story began to unravel as police uncovered a number of inaccuracies in her account.
When pressed further, the girl admitted that she had lied.
After the case, Detective Chief Inspector Dominic Scally said: “This false report not only wasted countless police hours but ultimately spread fear and concern throughout the community.
“These concerns, even though wholly unfounded, were very difficult to allay and we spent a lot of time and effort trying to reassure residents.
“The scope of our investigation in this incident proves how thoroughly we investigate all reports of rape and I hope this girl's inexcusable actions in no way deter genuine victims from coming forward.
“Today's sentence should also act as a warning that we will take action on anyone foolish enough to make up such an offence.”
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Ron Howard's "The Dilemma," with Vince Vaughn and Kevin James, can't make up its mind if it's a drama or a comedy, and it ends up feeling like failed attempts at both. Although Vince Vaughn does have a quintessential Vaughn moment -- his absurd toast at an anniversary party -- all in all, if you have a choice, see "True Grit" instead.
The reason we are mentioning "The Dilemma" on this site is that the dilemma in the title largely stems from the threat of a false claim of a sexual nature.
Ronnie (Vaughn) sees the wife of his best friend and business partner, Nick (James), kissing and carrying on in public with a much younger guy who looks like a model. Ronnie is faced with a dilemma: to tell Nick or not to tell him. Ronnie decides he has to tell, but first he goes to Nick's unfaithful wife, Geneva (Winona Ryder), to give her the chance to tell Nick so he won't have to.
Geneva spoils Ronnie's plan, and creates the "Dilemma," because she threatens not only to deny any accusation that she's having an affair, but to tell Nick that it was Ronnie who's been coming onto her for the past 20 years or so, even becoming physical of late. Her claim will have the ring of plausibility, she suggests, because she plans to tell Nick something true that Ronnie has never told him: she and Ronnie had drunken sex once in college before she ever met Nick. Geneva then gives Ronnie a demonstration of how she will lie, in a tearful, and completely believable outpouring of grief. Then she turns off the tears the way normal people shut off a spigot, and smugly asks Ronnie who Nick will believe. Nick, and the audience, know full well that Nick will believe Geneva's lie.
The scene made me uncomfortable, and I had a flashback to the MSNBC report about the woman who falsely accused a police officer of rape after he pulled her over for a traffic stop. If the traffic stop had not been videotaped, I suspect most people would assume the woman's subsequent tearful rape allegation was 100% accurate. My flashback was all the more chilling because it dawned on me that the woman in the MSNBC story was not an "A" list actress like Winona Ryder, yet her tale would have destroyed the life of an innocent man.
It underscored for me the power that women hold over men when it comes to sex lies. Men are fortunate that relatively few women choose to exercise that power. But the real power isn't in actually telling sex lies, it is in having the ability to do so, if "necessary." I suspect that most men, deep down, are aware of that power, and temper their behavior accordingly.
If you want to see another film still in theaters with disguised misandry, check out Mark Wahlber's "The Fighter," where a woman violently hurls dishes and pots at her defenseless husband, and, of course, he doesn't, because he can't, defend himself. It is played for comedic effect.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Friday, January 14, 2011
If you donate, please post that you did so in the comments.
Ovulating women overestimate strange males' probability of being rapists. Add this one to a growing list of adaptive cognitive biases—evolved psychological distortions that orient people toward strategic decision-making. These findings come from a 2007 report by Christine Garver-Apgar and her colleagues. "When the costs of being sexually victimized are highest," reason these investigators, "women should shift their perceptions to decrease false negative errors at the expense of making more false positive errors. Thus, we predicted that women perceive men as more sexually coercive at fertile points of their cycle than at non-fertile points." The researchers showed 169 normally ovulating women videotaped interviews with various men and asked them to rate the men on several dimensions, including their tendencies toward sexual aggression, kindness, or faithfulness. The more fertile the woman was at the time of her judging, the more likely she was to describe the men as "sexually coercive." Ovulating women didn't see these men as being less kind, faithful, or likely to commit—only more inclined to rape them.
Darwin's Rape Whistle: Have Women Evolved To Protect Themselves From Sexual Assault? And here is the study referenced: http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xuebao/qikan/manage/wenzhang/070317.pdf
Sounds so clinical and proper, doesn't it? ". . . women should shift their perceptions to decrease false negative errors at the expense of making more false positive errors." If a conflicted, ovulating woman has sex with a man, even though her outward manifestations of assent reasonably suggested that consent was present, she is more likely to convince herserlf that the encounter was "coercive."
Police raced to the park on December 21 last year after a 999 call made by 43-year-old Stephen Jones claiming he had been thrown to the ground and molested.
A man vaguely answering the description given by Jones spent four hours in Worcester police station being examined.
It was two months before it was established that Jones had been lying.
Jones of St Andrew’s Road, Pershore, was jailed for 12 months after pleading guilty at Worcester Crown Court to attempting to pervert the course of justice. He left the dock in tears.
Stephen Davies, prosecuting, said Jones reported the alleged attack at 5.30pm.
He claimed he had been grabbed from behind by a man who had threatened to rape him.
He had fought back, striking out, and the man ran off.
Because of the seriousness of the allegation, six police attended and an arrest was made of the man who proved to be innocent.
He had a charge hanging over him for two months and the effect had been stressful and traumatic.
Jones had been drinking and had an altercation with another customer in the pub.
He had been upset, went home and then complained to the police.
Jason Patel, defending, said Jones had been heavily intoxicated before returning to an empty home.
His behaviour was affected because he had been abused when he was a child but he was being counselled for his drink problem and his partner of six years was supporting him.
Judge John Cavell said Jones had acted “mindlessly” in making a false allegation for no apparent reason.
He found it difficult to link the actions of Jones with the suggestion that he had been abused as a child.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Let's briefly examine the, um, logic that led to that conclusion -- and then you tell me if feminism hasn't hit a new low for practicing double standards.
First, Valenti says this: "It remains unclear why 22-year-old Jared Loughner targeted [Congressman] Giffords, though reports of his mental instability and possible political beliefs are slowly pouring in. Without obvious answers at the ready, Americans are focusing on the culture of increasing vitriol in US politics."
Excuse me, Ms. Valenti, but all of the focus on "increasing vitriol" in politics is coming from one segment of Americans: marginalized far left ideologues who have crassly seized a tragedy caused not by any discernible political ideology but by mental illness in a disingenuous attempt to fasten responsibility for it on conservatives.
Valenti then declares that this "vitriol" even has a gender. Yep. It's male, of course, and she proves that by pointing to politicians' use of masculine language, including the phrase "man up," which is designed to show the electorate that the speaker isn't feminine. She declares: "In a country that sees masculinity – especially violent masculinity – as the ideal, it's no wonder that this type of language resonates."
I must note that the blanket declaration that America sees "violent masculinity" as "the ideal" isn't just a stretch, it's so preposterous that it is unworthy of serious refutation. It would mean, for example, that America holds the Unabomber, but not Captain Chesley Sullenberger, as "the ideal."
I haven't seen so much straw man since Dorothy met up with Ray Bolger on the Yellow Brick Road.
The upshot, Valenti suggests in an oblique and byzantine way, is that masculinity is to blame for the rampage.
Now think about this carefully. Do you see the irony in someone like Jessica Valenti blaming masculinity for the Arizona shooting rampage? In case I need to remind anyone, Ms. Valenti belongs to a group that has a conniption anytime someone suggests young women would be prudent not to drink to excess, flirt with men they don’t know, and then head back to the men's apartments with them. If the women thereafter claim they are raped, feminists denounce any suggestion that the women failed to take proper precautions as “victim blaming.”
You see, dear friends, feminists insist that the rapist alone is responsible for raping, and must be held fully accountable for it.
If the feminists are right about that, why are they and like-minded progressives so eager to give Jared Loughner a pass here? Or does personal responsibility only extend to rape cases?
Why are progressives, which includes feminists, so eager to blame everyone and everything for this rampage -- from Sarah Palin, to the Tea Party movement, to Jared Loughner’s favorite video “Bodies” by Drowning Pool, to conservative talkmeisters Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck, to masculinity itself -- everyone and everything except Jared Loughner?
You see, we live in a culture where we aren't allowed even to hint that a girl was less than prudent for putting herself in obvious harm's way with a rapist, but it's perfectly fair to malign an entire gender for the literally insane acts of one deranged person.
I point all this out in case anyone needs further proof of modern feminism's dishonesty, its generalized mental instability, and its blatant and palpable moral bankruptcy.
But the judge entered "not guilty" verdicts on all charges, and warned the woman that they could be held against her if she repeats her behaviour. Why was she not tried and convicted and given prison time? Doctors were unable to agree whether she was of sound enough mind to realize her claims were false, and that's an element of the crimes.
Consider the implications: the progressives who seek to minimize the prevalence of false rape reports will not count the rape claims here as "false rape" claims, simply because the woman supposedly was so deranged that she didn't know she was lying and so was not convicted. Instead, they will dishonestly suggest that since these claims weren't "false" in the sense of leading to a conviction, that they were actual rapes. You think I'm kidding?
If women were victimized by a man in an analogous manner, this obscure case would be a rallying cry for women's rights. There would be talk of "hate crimes," and widespread outrage that such a monster was able to escape prison and terrorize other innocent people. But since the victims were "just" men, this case will not be discussed beyond the confines of this and similar blogs.
Why is there not far more outrage about this?
HERE IS THE NEWS STORY:
Woman who falsely accused husband given court order
A WOMAN who repeatedly made false allegations against her husband could be jailed if she breaks a court order to stop her wasting police time.
Amanda Taylor was yesterday prohibited from contacting more than a dozen named people, including a doctor and police officers in North Yorkshire.
The 34-year-old was due to stand trial on 21 charges of perverting the course of justice, but they were dropped after two days of legal discussions.
The case collapsed after doctors were unable to agree whether Taylor was of sound enough mind to realise her claims were false.
Although a judge entered not guilty verdicts on all charges, he warned Taylor they could be held against her if she repeats her behaviour.
The five-year restraining order imposed yesterday bans her from harassing or contacting the named individuals, or from getting someone to do it for her.
Her barrister, Katherine Dunn, told Judge Howard Crowson she had also explained the implications of the order to her client’s husband, David.
Mr Taylor was named in most of his wife’s false claims made to police between March and September 2009, Teesside Crown Court heard.
Twenty untrue reports of rape, abduction, false imprisonment and assault were made against her innocent husband and other unnamed men.
Then in May last year, she made a series of false reports about her and her husband receiving a number of threatening letters.
At an earlier hearing, Miss Dunn said Taylor, of Rye Cottage, Aldbrough St John, near Richmond, North Yorkshire, accepted making all the untrue allegations, but the issue was whether she knew it was wrong.
Judge Crowson said he believed the prosecution had made the right decision and told Taylor: “I hope that it might be the case that this will never happen again.
He added: “Although it resulted in the acquittal of Amanda Taylor, it is necessary to protect people from harassment by her.
“I have read enough statements – both those prepared for the trial and other documents – which make it clear that each and every one of those people does require that type of protection.”
P.S. Check out our latest piece in The Spearhead: An 89-Year-Old-Statue Helps Unlock the Scorn For Men's Rights
A 38-year-old Rosemont woman was arrested at 2:10 p.m. Dec. 3 and charged with disorderly conduct after she made a false police report Oct. 12 about criminal sexual assault.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Woman seduces teen boys, gets probation, and her attorney pooh-poohs what happened as a 'rite of passage'
As you read the story, reverse the genders and try not to laugh, or get sick, as you try to imagine anything remotely similar happening if a man were in the woman's place. Read it to the end, because the best is saved for last.
A 43-year-old woman named Cassandra Sproch pleaded guilty this afternoon to trying to seduce her son's teenage friends and plying them with wine. The state claimed that Ms. Sproch hosted her son and three of his friends for dinner last November 15. Ms. Sproch did what any self-respecting mother would do: she dressed seductively, gave all the boys wine, and flirted with them, according to Deputy District Attorney Laura Ditka.
According to one news account: "When the teens went into another room to play video games, she called the 15-year-old boy upstairs, police said, touched him and offered to have sex with him." The boy refused, so after continued requests, she got the 16-year-old to go upstairs with her. Here's how one news account described what happened:: "Ms. Sproch was accused of taking a 16-year-old boy into her bedroom. When the other teens went searching for their friend, they found him in her room. She had him pinned against a wall and was kissing him. Ms. Ditka said Ms. Sproch also touched the boy's groin. Her son and another 15-year-old boy pulled their friend from the room, and they left Ms. Sproch's house."
Did you get that? She pinned a boy up against the wall, kissed him, and touched his groin.
What do you think her sentence was? Yep. 18 months probation, on 14 total counts, including endangering the welfare of children, corruption of minors, indecent assault, false imprisonment and furnishing alcohol to minors.
What do you suppose an adult male would have gotten if he had pleaded guilty to doing these exact things to four teenage girls?
And what do you suppose would happen to him behind bars during his lengthy prison sentence?
But wait. It gets better: "[Ms. Sproch's] defense attorney, Patrick Thomassey, blamed what happened on the woman being lonely and drunk."
Again, reverse the genders: do you think the newspaper would have even printed that awful excuse?
But Mr. Thomassey isn't finished: "She does not have a specific recollection of the evening, as she drank two bottles of wine," he said.
And this is supposed to help her?
Just wait -- remember I told you to read it to the end because the best was saved for last. Here it is: "Mr. Thomassey went on to say that what happened with the boys is like a 'rite of passage.'"
Read it again. I'm not making that up.
He continued: "'I'd have kept my mouth shut, and said, 'wow' to my buddies,' he told Allegheny County Judge David R. Cashman. 'No one got hurt. There has been no inference this has affected them in a negative way.'"
Another news account quotes learned defense counsel: “Had I been one of those guys it would never have gone this far because I would have kept my mouth shut and said, ‘Wow’ to my buddies. . . . . There’s a big difference between boys and girls. To boys what happened is a rite of passage. It doesn’t have the effect on young men as it has on young women. Guys deal with stuff.”
Great advice, Mr. Thomassey! Let me see if I can summarize: if you are a teen male, and are the victim of a sex crime at the hands of a woman, keep your mouth shut, and be thankful for the erection.
The district attorney, Ms. Ditka, refuted Mr. Thomassey's enlightened comments: "When it's a woman offender on a boy, it's an atta boy. When it's a man offender on a girl, it's the horror of all horrors. I don't see a difference. These are impressionable children."
Good for you, Ms. Ditka. Now if only the courts, not to mention learned defense counsel, would only understand what you just said.
Links: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11012/1117423-100.stm and http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_717858.html
A total of four men were arrested following her allegations.
Det Con Clare Larkworthy said: "False reports of rape distract officers from dealing with victims of genuine crimes."
Blunden, of School Road, Reading, was convicted of two counts of perverting the course of justice at Reading Crown Court.
She was released on bail for sentencing on 14 January.
Det Con Larkworthy added: "There was significant financial cost to both investigations and a number of police officers and civilian staff hours have been taken up by investigating these incidents.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Surveillance video from the resort shows that the girls were drinking at the resort's Dragon's Ultra Lounge (the drinking age in the Bahamas is 18, and the girls were both 17), and occasionally kissing each other when Wittels and his friends approached the bar area. A source said the video shows the girls gesturing for the young men to join them, and that Wittels and two friends obliged.
The video showed that the two young women followed the young men to a private party, where the incident allegedly happened. Garrett and his friends Robert Rothschild, 21 and Jonathan Oberti 21 were charged with rape. The three young men admit to having sex with the women, but insist it was consensual. The age of consent in the Bahamas is 16, so age is not an issue in the charges. At issue is that the girls claim they don't remember what happened. The charges stem from the fact that the girls might have been so impaired that they were unable to consent to the sex. Two other friends of Garrett's have also been held in connection to the incident, but they were not charged with rape.
The father of one of the girls called police after his daughter and her companion returned to their hotel room, a source said. Police in the Bahamas conducted blood tests to see if the young women had been slipped a date-rape drug. The tests revealed no sign of drugs. Garrett was released on a bond of $10,000 after a court hearing.
Wayne Munroe, a Bahamian attorney who is representing all five young men, said it is "easy" to get arrested for rape in the Bahamas. "If somebody is charged with rape, the general inclination is to think there must be something to it," Munroe said. According to Munroe, many rape charges in the Bahamas should not be filed in the first place. Munroe said this arrest-first, ask-questions-later policy evolved from a complaint by a former U.S. ambassador who alleged the Bahamian police did not take rape cases seriously.
Garrett is a superstar college athlete. He currently has a 56 game hitting streak, the second-longest hitting streak in the history of the NCAA, and is behind only to the record of 58 games held by Robin Ventura. Earlier this year, he has been nominated for ESPN’s annual ESPY Awards in the “Best College Male Athlete” category. Garrett's father is a prominent Miami orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Michael Wittels.
Garrett is described as deeply religious. Before each game, he kneels in the outfield and recites the Shema, the Jewish prayer declaring the unity of God. He also carries a travel mezuzah, which contains the Shema prayer, and on road trips he brings a copy of the Jewish Wayfarer's Prayer. Garrett's parents are wary of the media coverage surrounding his hitting streak, citing their fear that others will give their son the "ayin harah," or evil eye of jealousy, his father said. As for the rape charges: “Anyone can accuse anyone of anything at any time,” Dr. Wittels said. "[Garrett is] devastated that someone would accuse him of this.” Garrett is "not doing well, obviously," said Dr. Wittels. "He’s blown away. He’s devastated that someone would accuse him of this.” Dr. Wittels suggested that the girls were motivated to make the charges due to Garrett's success as a college athlete.
Analysis and Lessons
Assuming attorney Munroe has accurately described Bahama law regarding the "arrest-first, ask-questions-later" mentality when it comes to rape, it is, of course, a repulsive contortion of anything remotely resembling justice. Sadly, it is a policy too often followed in too many jurisdictions in the United States. A prominent example is found in the Hofstra false rape case. It is much easier to simply arrest any male charged, without regard for his possible innocence, rather than sort out the facts first and assume the remote risk that the accused will "rape again," and thus embarrass the law enforcement official who "delayed" making an arrest.
The instant allegation fits a classic pattern of false rape cases we deal with on this site: a "he said/she said" rape charge involving persons of college age or younger coated with a patina of alcohol; more than one guy having sex with a female accuser; and a loved one of an accuser who is outraged by the sexual encounter.
The girls, who were drinking on their own before they ever met the young men, say they cannot remember what happened, and the charges stem from the fact that the girls might have been so impaired that they were unable to consent to the sex. Yet, we are told, a video shows that the girls were perfectly capable of gesturing for the young men to join them, and to follow the young men to a room where they had sex. The girls were also able to make it back to their own hotel room after the fact. No evidence, of which we are aware, indicates that the young men plied the girls with alcohol. A blood test reveals that the young men did not slip date rape drugs in the girls' drinks.
The father of one of the accusers called the police when his daughter returned to her room. The father did not earlier prevent his underage daughter from from drinking illegally with her friend at a bar in the same hotel where he was staying. Moreover, there is no indication that the hotel was charged for serving alcohol to minors. It is more than possible that the bartender did not believe that the girls had imbibed to excess when he or she was serving them. If that's the case, it is questionable whether Garrett and his friends should have reasonably suspected that the girls were too drunk to engage in a sexual romp.
We have frequently cautioned young men that the exact scenario described here is a recipe for a false rape claim. The alcohol-fueled hook-up culture is a disaster for too many young men. To suggest that couples should never drink and fool around denies eons of accumulated knowledge about gender relations. Young people often drink to lower inhibitions, knowing full well where it will lead. But asking the police or a jury to sort out what happened afterwards based on a "he said/she said" account puts an impossible burden on our law enforcement and judicial apparatuses, even in the "arrest-first, ask-questions-later" Bahamas. Young men do not generally understand that women experience much greater after-the-fact regret than men do. Sometimes feelings of regret are translated into feelings of "being used," and sometimes feelings of "being used" are misinterpreted or purposefully misconstrued as "rape." Unfortunately, the prevailing feminist mantra is for young women to "party like the guys," without bothering to tell them about the regret asymmetry that separates the genders.
We have also written extensively about the fact that false rape claims flourish in an environment where young women feel a need to keep a consensual sexual encounter from someone important to them, namely, a father, a boyfriend, or girlfriends. A prime example is when the young woman is still under her parents' financial or emotional thumb, and they disapprove of her having sex, especially of the one-night-stand variety. As we previously wrote here: "If a girl needs to hide the fact that she's having sex with you from a parent, as most teen girls below college age do, [young men] are playing with fire."
In addition, we've described the scenario where more than one guy is having sex with a girl as "ground zero" for false rape claims. That's one of the allegations in this case. We wrote here: "We've seen this multiple times. The reasons are obvious: how on earth can she possibly explain this to a . . . parent. . . ? How will she hold her head up on campus? Most sane young women will deeply regret that encounter after-the-fact and will worry that if word got out, it would destroy what's left of her reputation. . . . . Men should never, ever put themselves in this awful situation."
And, of course, Garrett's name is splashed all over the newspaper, but the identity of his accusers, who very well might be lying, is protected with all the tenacity that Clark Kent guards Superman's.
Garrett Wittels is, by all accounts, an upstanding young man. He now finds himself stranded in a situation that countless other young men his age have found themselves in, a nightmare world where his liberty, his entire future, hinges on some Bahamian official accurately sorting out a murky encounter with two young woman. When Garrett reads this post -- and my bet is he will -- he needs to know that he is not alone, that this happens all the time to young men who never dreamed it was possible. It happens to the best of young men, because when you are a 20-years-old male, with exploding testosterone, it is not easy to resist female temptations.
Here, like the mythical Sirens whose beautiful singing summoned ancient mariners to their deaths on rocky shores, the young women gestured for the young men to approach them in a bar, and to the men's great misfortune, they did.
Monday, January 10, 2011
But what about the Unabomber, Theodore Kaczynski? Pretty notorious case, that one. But in all the news coverage about the Unabomber's reign of terror, you probably never heard that aside from Kaczynski's effort to blow up an airplane because he thought it would be populated by businessmen (an act that even he later regretted), his targets were exclusively male, although some women did get caught in the crossfire. In his "manifesto," in which he advocated a revolution against the industrial system, he decried the "craziness" of leftism and tied it to political correctness: "Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families." It is little wonder he went after members of his own gender.
Have you heard about the Brazilian teenage girl who, in 2009, claimed to have murdered thirty men? She decided to confess before turning 18 so she could be tried as a minor. She claimed she targeted men in Sao Paulo for reasons that varied from “money, revenge and to bring justice.” She appears to be the world’s most prolific teenage serial killer. See here and here. Generally, if a teenage girl is the world's most prolific anything, the story is plastered all over the newspaper. That one seems to have gone unnoticed.
Ah, you say, but the vast majority of serial killers are male, and when they target one gender for their victims, it is typically female. Correct. But doesn't that make it all the more newsworthy that the Unabomber's victims were male, and that a girl confessed to killing 30 men? (And by the way, how many of these have you heard of?)
You seriously don't think the news coverage is different depending on the gender of the victims? Here's an article that contrasts two similar killing sprees in one city, except the genders of the victims were different. The difference in the reactions was predictable. http://community.post-gazette.com/blogs/radicalmiddle/archive/2009/08/31/men-are-from-wilkinsburg-women-are-from-collier.aspx
When men die in accidents, or are killed in an attack, their gender is typically ignored in the ensuing news coverage. When women are killed, their gender is trumpeted in the headline.
It is beyond dispute that innocent men are more vulnerable to the criminals than innocent women. Check out a source feminists could not dispute, J. Friedman, J. Valenti, Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape (2008) at 23: "Men are 150 percent more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than women are. . . . . Men are more likely to be victimized by a stranger (63 percent of violent victimizations) . . . ."
One of the great conundrums we face in doing this blog is the almost religious-like resistance we get from the persons who dominate the public discourse about rape when we dare even suggest that men, as a class, can be victims. I am sorry, but I do not pretend to have an answer to the question I posed in the title of this post. Many of our readers are better versed in these macro-gender issues than I am, and I will defer to them. Whatever the answer, I see this as the single greatest stumbling block we face.
A woman accused of filing a false rape claim is expected to appear in an Orange County courtroom today.
Emily Marie Riker, 21, of Orlando, told a security guard at a convenience store in June that someone had pulled her into a vehicle and raped her, but deputies said her story was inconsistent and did not match the physical evidence.
She faces charges of filing a false claim to a law-enforcement officer.
Riker later said she lied because she was angry with the man she had been with, according to the Orange County Sheriff's Office.
Deputies also determined that Riker had filed two other false rape reports in Orange County and may have reported one in Osceola County.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Friday, January 7, 2011
How do you suppose such an incident would be handled?
Do you think the superintendent of the school where it occurred would say that "these things happen" and that "the incident might have been blown out of proportion"? Or that “girls won’t be personally damaged by this”? Or, “if the victims were so emotionally affected, then why has it taken so long for us to find out?” Or that because so many boys were involved, “I’m not going to crucify one kid for something others also did”?
The questions scarcely survive their statement. There is not a chance in hell that any superintendent would utter such things in that scenario and expect to keep his job for long. In fact, it isn't at all difficult to predict how that scenario would be handled: it would be treated as a grievous crisis almost as serious as murder. Angry parents would be screaming at school board meetings; intense investigations would ensue; suspensions would follow in quick order; there would be criminal and civil actions; the news media from numerous news outlets would be camped outside the school; solemn-tongued news reporters would describe it in grave tones as an unspeakable occurrence; women's groups would be in hysterical overdrive, demanding criminal charges against all the boys, and insisting that the persons who run the school be fired.
In short, it would be the typical overreaction that America has exhibited for the sexual assault of women since its earliest days. It is the kind of overreaction that prompted Theodore Roosevelt to declare -- in a State of the Union Address, no less -- that rape was a crime "worse than murder." Treating rape in this fashion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once explained, stems from a tradition "when a woman was regarded as as good as dead once she was raped," and such overreaction does "no kindness to women."
Now imagine if the victims in the scenario noted above were not girls but boys. How do you suppose such an incident would be handled?
We don't have to suppose. We know how it would be handled, because it actually happened. See the news story below. And it was treated seriously, but not with politicized hysterics or chivalrous overreaction. No one pretended it was an act on a par with the Kennedy assassination. No one pretended the victims were brutalized for life. In fact, the superintendent made statements similar to the ones quoted above. In short, the incident was handled honestly.
The story below illustrates how sexual assault is handled when it's not encrusted by eons of chivalry and feminist victim-mongering.
Schools Investigating Sexual ‘Hazing’ At Junior High
The saying goes “boys will be boys” but some student athletes at the Greensburg Junior High School may have taken their pranks too far.
The Greensburg Daily News learned that at some point early in the junior high basketball season, members of the boys’ team engaged in some locker room hijinks that escalated into inappropriate behavior.
Greensburg School Superintendent Tom Hunter and School Resource Officer Bruce Copple confirmed an investigation has been launched into an incident in which members of the basketball team allegedly physically restrained other team members while others sat on them, either clothed in undergarments or nude, and slapped the restrained players in the face with their genitalia.
Both Hunter and Copple conceded the incident likely took place before Christmas, but the corporation had only learned of the incident a few weeks ago after a staff member overheard a conversation and a student reluctantly came forward.
Although no formal complaint has been lodged with the corporation, Copple said an investigation was launched immediately and all the student athletes were summoned for a meeting with principal Dr. Rodney King, school athletic director David Strause and Copple.
“We met with every athlete and told them what would happen,” Copple said.
Hunter passed down the message to the students, he said, that this behavior would not be accepted.
“It’s locker room hijinks. It’s harassment. It’s hazing, but we’re not going to tolerate it. We made it clear this isn’t going to happen,” Hunter said.
Further incidents, he noted, would be met by a stiff punishment, including expulsion and a ban from ever participating in Greensburg athletics.
While the punishment for further incidents has been spelled out to the students, Copple said the administration has not closed the case on this.
“The book is wide open,” he said.
However, deciphering what happened and who is responsible has proved to be a tough task. He said “90 percent” of the things that have happened in the locker rooms are adolescent hijinks. However, this “extremely isolated incident” has been problematic because of the seemingly widespread nature of involvement, Copple said, and has proved personally trying for the long-time lawman. He noted in these instances, one wants a quick resolution and this incident seems to have no end in sight.
“I’m personally struggling with this because I can’t get that closure. This isn’t Johnny hit Susie. It’s not that simple. It’s big, not in the sense that it’s a widespread problem, but because so many kids knew about it, saw it, heard it or were involved with it,” Copple said.
Multiple stories and finger-pointing has bogged down the investigation, Hunter said, and Copple added much of the difficulty has come from cracking the code of adolescent silence in the face of such a serious situation.
“I can understand how a child, especially in the athletic realm, can struggle with this. They don’t want to tell on their friends or their teammates,” Copple said.
Students might fear retribution, he noted, for breaking that code. While no criminal charges are being sought, he said it could come to that, which would mean the student who told would have to reveal himself in open court if brought to testify.
Copple said he has spoken with a number of students and their parents and will continue to do so until he is satisfied with the outcome. However, he noted parents and students with information need to step forward to ensure the proper action is taken on the students perpetrating the alleged actions as well as proactive measures to prevent future ones.
Hunter said he was frustrated by that point. No one has filed a complaint, and while they will continue to work it as an internal matter, he said that would be necessary to take the investigation up a notch.
However, Hunter noted, these things happen in athletics and while he does not condone these actions at all, he feels the incident may be blown out of proportion because of the lingering silence.
“Boys won’t be personally damaged (by this),” he said. “If (the victims) were so emotionally affected, then why has it taken so long for us to find out?”
Until the matter is settled and both Copple and Hunter are satisfied, no disciplinary action will be taken against the potentially offending students. Hunter noted with the incident seemingly so widespread throughout the basketball program its hard to single anyone out.
“I’m not crucifying one kid for something others are doing,” Hunter said.
While the school works on the investigation, preventative measures have been put in place. Coaches have been informed, Copple said, and they are not to let any player out of their sight. As a former junior high principal, Hunter said he understands the nature of these adolescents and supervision must be a top priority for all staff at the school.
“When you are dealing with kids at this age you have to always watch them, but they always find a few moments to do something,” Hunter said.
Copple also feels somewhat distressed by the fact that students are staying silent. This year, he and junior high staff initiated a bully prevention program, which carries open door and zero tolerance policies. One of the main things for kids who feel like they are getting bullied or for those who witness the acts is to come forward and tell a school official.
“What we need, what any school needs if a student is being bullied, we need information,” Copple said. “It bothers me that somebody saw this and didn’t say ‘This is wrong,’ and didn’t step forward.”
Copple said any student or parent with information regarding the incident is welcome to contact himself or Dr. King at the junior high. His hope is to find closure and use the incident to ensure this type of situation never arises in the locker rooms or anywhere else within Greensburg schools.
“We can’t take away what has happened, but we are being proactive in the hope that you can make sure it doesn’t happen again,” Copple said.
Custodial Sentences: 'No' For False Rape Accusers; 'Yes' For Rapists
*Dr. McGregor, director of New Zealand’s Rape Prevention Education, does not believe in custodial sentences for false rape accusers. When a 17-year-old New Zealand girl was arrested after falsely claiming that she was dragged off by three youths and sexually assaulted at knifepoint, Dr. McGregor was quoted regarding false rape complainants: “I would recommend some form of therapeutic intervention rather than charging them.” Dr. McGregor claims that “someone needed to be ‘pretty distressed’ to make a false allegation of sexual assault,” and that “very few women made false complaints as a form of revenge.”
*Consider Dr. McGregor's quote in the news story about this case: Michelle Anne Taruka Grafton, 19, a student, admitted her claims of being forced into a car, tied to a bed, and repeatedly raped by a man she knew were false, but she did it because she liked the attention. In fact, she and the man had had a brief liaison on the night in question but had spent most of the evening watching television with the man's flatmate. The hapless man Grafton accused was contacted by police on Christmas Eve and asked to make a statement. The lies made him sick. Then, with the investigation hanging over the innocent man's head, Grafton hopped on a plane and went away on holiday to Australia for a month. The innocent man was left to stew in a state comparable to hell: "I didn't know if I was going to be charged. I was going a bit stir crazy, I couldn't function. I was being accused of something that was out of this world." Finally, Grafton returned and admitted her lie. What was Kim McGregor's reaction? According to the news account: "Dr Kim McGregor said false complaints were rare. 'We treat people who have made false allegations with compassion because there's always a question mark over other issues being played out,' she said. McGregor said 90 per cent of rapes were not reported."
*She's also been quoted as saying that false rape allegations were often triggered by traumatic experiences and she questioned the benefit of prosecution in such cases. And: "False rape complaints were often 'a call for help' and could indicate some type of past trauma . . . ."
*Dr. McGregor has no such compassion for men convicted of sex offenses. For them, she does believe in custodial sentences. She believes they need to be held accountable for their actions because otherwise, they won't change, and if they aren't held accountable, it won't deter other sex offenders.
*She once said: "We are already frequently disappointed in the length of sentences for sexual violence. Sentences do not appear to be in line with the severity of the crime."
*When a prominent New Zealand entertainer drunkenly exposed himself and forced a 16-year-old female's face into his genitals, the judge ruled that the consequences of a conviction and publicly naming the man would be out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. Dr. McGregor criticized the ruling, saying that without a sanction there's nothing to stop him offending again. She also said that unless those around the offender know what he has done they can't watch him, and that makes him a danger. She noted: "The fact that this man hasn't had his name released means that it's not going to be safe because it's only when a person is known and named that people in the community can watch and observe that person that the rest of the community is safe." (Note that these concerns have no application to false rape accusers.)
*Another time, Dr. McGregor attacked a decision to give a child sex offender early release from prison. She said: "This paltry sanction sends a clear signal to the thousands of child sex offenders throughout New Zealand that they can pretty much continue to sexually offend against our children without very much in the way of interruption or penalty." (But, somehow, failing to charge false rape accusers will not send a message to other false accusers that they can lie with impunity.)
*Another time, a man insisted on representing himself in a rape trial even though psychiatric reports said he displayed features of a severe personality disorder with antisocial narcissistic and paranoid features. The man was found guilty but was later given a new trial because he was unfit to defend himself. Whether the man was actually capable of defending himself didn't seem to matter to Dr. McGregor. According to the news account: Rape Crisis director Dr Kim McGregor said the case was re-victimising the victim. She said it was [the man's]choice to represent himself and he was deemed fit to make that decision."
Mitigating Factors: False Rape Accusers Versus Rapists
*Dr. McGregor is on record as saying that substance abuse is no excuse for committing any crime, let alone one of a sexual nature against an innocent woman, and that a sentencing the offender should not take into account that he was on the drug P at the time of the offending.
*Dr. McGregor seemed far more sympathetic when a female drug and alcohol abuser was being sentenced for a false rape claim. She said: "If there's alcohol involved, or drugs, there may be a confusion between historic issues that have been unresolved and a current need for help."
McGregor Accepts Sexual Grievance Industry Mantras
Dr. McGregor buys into the mantras repeated with zombie-like repetition by the sexual grievance industry.
*She says that "less than 10% of crimes of sexual violence are reported to police, and of that small number only about 10 in 100 cases will (see) the sex offender convicted."
*Dr McGregor says that 50% of females who seek help from mental health services have experienced sexual violence.
*When a man who owns several pornography businesses said he was giving away pornographic DVDs because "there is a lot of evidence that ready access to porn actually reduces the incidence of rape and other sexual offences," Dr. McGregor expressed outrage: "Kim McGregor . . . said the sector was working with high numbers of sexual violence cases 'day in, day out, year after year. And then we have to try and counter these ridiculous claims'." (In fact, Dr. Christopher J. Ferguson of Texas A&M has said this: ". . . pornography is no more linked to rape than violent games are to violent crimes. Researchers have long known that rape rates have gone down in the U.S. as pornography consumption has increased. Rapists typically consume less pornography and are exposed to it later than non-rapist men.")
*Dr. McGregor took issue with a British study that drink-spiking with date-rape drugs is an urban myth. A Kent University study of more than 200 students found many women blamed the effects of a "bad night out" on date-rape drugs when they had drunk excessively. The researchers said many young people were in "active denial" that drinking could leave them incoherent and incapacitated. According to the news report: "But New Zealand Rape Prevention Education director Kim McGregor dismissed the researchers' findings saying she knew of women who had been left permanently disabled as a result of date-drug spiking."
*Dr. McGregor worries about gendered violence during the World Rugby Cup. It is "inevitable" that there will be "many extra rape survivors," she said.
Scrap the Adversarial System for Rape, Adopt an Inquisitorial System
*When police officers accused of sex offenses were found "not guilty" at trial, Dr. McGregor said that the complainant in the case would be shattered by the result. She used the occasion to favor scrapping the adversarial system that is a hallmark of our criminal justice system. According to the news account: "There had to be a change from the adversarial system that pitted one person against another in terms of their credibility, she said. Dr McGregor would like to see an inquisitorial form where both parties must answer questions in court."
*But the new inquisition for rape needs to be wary of male judges who would interview women and children. "Rape Prevention Education director Kim McGregor agrees that the gender of the interviewer may increase a victim's anxiety, but says this could be avoided by the way the interviewer questions the victim."
Can we say this is an actual false allegation? No. But when the complainant is nowhere to be found, and there's an unavailable witness, the prosecutor did the right thing in dropping the charges. Of course, since it was dismissed without prejudice, that means the prosecutors office can refile the charges down the road. And I would be willing to bet, that they are moving heaven and earth to find this young woman.
Charges have been dropped against a man who had been accused of third-degree sexual assault in June.
Lancaster County Judge Gale Pokorny on Monday approved a request by prosecutor Matthew Acton to dismiss without prejudice three charges filed against Chiemela Onyemaobi, 24.
He had been accused of second-degree false imprisonment, third-degree sexual assault and third-degree assault following a June arrest by a Nebraska State Patrol trooper. A trooper found a 19-year-old woman walking on Interstate 80. She said an evening with Onyemaobi had gone awry.
Onyemaobi said Wednesday he was willing to go to trial to prove he was innocent. A jury trial had been scheduled to begin Monday in Lancaster County Court before Acton filed a motion to dismiss the charges.
Chief Deputy Lancaster County Attorney Joe Kelly said prosecutors were unable to make contact with the woman who accused Onyemaobi. Onyemaobi's attorney, Jim Hoppe, also said the case was dismissed because of an unavailable witness.
"There was no evidence to support anything she was saying," Onyemaobi said. "And the case was dropped."
Thursday, January 6, 2011
News media won't name accuser in civil suit against baseball player, even though police won't file criminal charges due to inconsistent evidence
New York Mets pitcher Johan Santana was sued by a woman named Deanna Williams who claims Santana sexually assaulted her in 2009 on a south Fort Myers golf course. Santana supposedly “tore off her clothes” and “assaulted her even though she begged and pleaded with him to stop.” Williams also claims that Santana impregnated her but that she subsequently had a miscarriage.
Santana claims the sex was consensual, and he's filed a counterclaim accusing Williams of defamation and malicious prosecution. The court papers he filed use terms such as "extortion," "blackmail" and "sham rape claim."
Here is Williams' amended complaint, and here is the court docket, which shows the case is in the discovery phase.
Santana, 31, states the woman searched terms such as "false rape," "evidence preservation" and "Johan Santana" on her home computers, which she refused to let Lee County sheriff's detectives inspect. Detectives later obtained a search warrant to inspect the computers.
Note that if Ms. Williams Googled "false rape," the very first entry she would have found is this site.
There is only the civil action pending. Neither party will face criminal sanctions as a result of the disposition of this case. There are no criminal charges pending. The police dropped their investigation into the alleged sexual assault for “lack of evidence.” They said that “the alleged victim’s statement is not consistent with other witnesses.”
While the criminal investigation was ongoing, Santana claims that Williams demanded substantial sums of money. "She threatened to file a civil lawsuit which would expose Santana to public scandal and ridicule unless Santana paid (the woman)," the counter lawsuit states. "(The woman) knew the claims she made to the Lee County Sheriff's Office were false and she maliciously misrepresented to the police that she had not consented to have sex with Santana. (Her) sole purpose in making up these allegations was to extort Santana to pay (her) substantial sums of money to avoid having her contrived allegations made public."
Last November Lee Circuit Judge Michael McHugh ruled that Williams, who initially filed the lawsuit as "Jane Doe," would have to attach her actual name to the lawsuit in order to continue the court action.
Even though there won't be any criminal charges, and even thought the judge has ordered that Williams' name be publicly identified in court records as part of the case, news outlets still are not naming her "because she might be the victim of a sex crime." The news media has even redacted all identifying information about Williams from the police report reproduced in connection with its report of the story. See here.
Did you get that? In a classic "he said/she said" civil lawsuit, she is granted anonymity by the news media. His reputation is blackened, possibly beyond repair.
The news media's insistence on shielding the identities of sex accusers in even civil matters is beyond troubling. Unlike a criminal case, a civil dispute is a private one. Ms. Williams' claim, even if true, will not keep a rapist off the streets or protect other women from him. It will do nothing more than line Ms. Williams' pockets with a lot of money. Ms. Williams has chosen to seek money from Mr. Santanta by using a publicly funded institution, as is her right. The judge was perfectly correct in holding that she couldn't pursue this action as "Jane Doe."
Yet, the news media steadfastly refuses to report on a matter that is news, by any measure, and that is a matter of public record. Why should a possible false rape accuser be afforded an advantage in a private dispute over the man who could very well be the real victim here?
But don't listen to me. Naomi Wolf, feminist high priestess, opposes anonymity for even criminal matters: "Feminists have long argued that rape must be treated like any other crime. But in no other crime are accusers kept behind a wall of anonymity. Treating rape so differently serves only to maintain its mischaracterization as a 'different' kind of crime, loaded with cultural baggage and projections. . . . . Though children’s identities should, of course, be shielded in sex-crime allegations, women are not children. If one makes a serious criminal accusation, one must wish to be treated – and one must treat oneself – as a moral adult."
Prof. Alan Dershowitz, the sage of Harvard Law School, once said this: "People who have gone to the police and publicly invoked the criminal process and accused somebody of a serious crime such as rape must be identified. In this country there is no such thing and should not be such a thing as anonymous accusation. If your name is in court it is a logical extension that it should be printed in the media. How can you publish the name of the presumptively innocent accused but not the name of the accuser?"
Ms. Wolf and Prof. Dershowitz were criticizing anonymity in the context of a criminal case. The case to scrap anonymity is all the more compelling the further one moves away from the criminal arena. There is no reasoned justification for it where the accuser is seeking lucre as her justice in a private civil action.
And, I'd add this: I am not even sure that the news media consistently applies its policy of shielding the identities of sex offense accusers when the genders are switched. See here.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Dyfed-Powys Police said extensive inquiries into the alleged incident, which was claimed to have taken place near John Street in the early hours of Saturday, November 13, had led them to conclude the crime had not occurred and was "totally unfounded".
Llanelli detective inspector Gary Phillips said: "We take all claims of sexual assault very seriously and will fully investigate such reports.
"Unfortunately, these allegations were totally unfounded and resulted in a great deal of unnecessary work for our officers. We are now dealing with the issue of falsely reporting a crime."
Mr Phillips went on to say that officers gave every victim their full support and he hoped this incident would not deter genuine victims of sexual assaults from coming forward and reporting crimes.
Llanelli AM Helen Mary Jones backed those sentiments, saying: "Any false accusation is always terrible and wrong, but there is nothing at all to suggest that false accusations of rape and sexual assault are common.
"In fact, we know that many women are put off reporting such crimes for all kinds of reasons. It's really important that anyone who is a victim of an offence like this is encouraged to come forward."
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Here's an artistic articulation of that attitude. In David LaChapelle's controversial "The Rape of Africa," based on Botticelli’s “Venus and Mars,” Africa, the beautiful continent, is represented by Naomi Campbell, and the piece suggests that she has been ravaged by white Europe. Europe, of course, is represented by a young, white male, snoozing carelessly while he is protected by three black boys who will do his dirty work. They are surrounded by treasures taken from the continent. Ms. Campbell is one of the treasures.
I haven't seen so much straw man since Dorothy met up with Ray Bolger on the way to Emerald City.
But give the she-devil her due. Harding's tactic is actually ingenious. She derisively posits things that are true as supposed evidence of a massive lie, and she dismisses them so off-handedly that the uninitiated will assume she must know what the hell she's talking about (this, of course, is supported by the view that every feminist is an authority on rape, even though she isn't, and that every feminist has had all manner of profound life experience that has somehow completely eluded the rest of us).
Let's shoot down her assertions in quick order:
"She wanted it."
I never knew what that meant, did you? "She wants it." Hmm. Is it supposed to mean that a rape victim "wants" to be raped? Which, of course, begs the question, if someone wants to be raped, is it really "rape"?
Let's be honest: virtually no one walking around in 2011 says this about a woman who's been raped. Unfortunately, it can aptly be said about a hell of a lot of women who have lied about being raped. But we're not supposed to talk about them.
"If she didn’t want it, then he didn’t know he didn’t have consent -- it was all a big misunderstanding."
When you say we should be "skeptical" of this claim, Ms. Harding, do you mean we should be "skeptical" of the forty-nine percent of the women that your high priestess, Mary Koss, says were sexually assaulted but who actually labeled the experience a "miscommunication"? A full 73 percent of the women whom Koss characterized as rape victims said that they hadn’t been raped.
Hmm. That's a problem, isn't it? I mean, if the women who were "raped" didn't know they were being raped, how on earth do we assume their "rapists" knew they were raping them? (Of course, why let that little conundrum get in the way of a good feminist victim fetish?) But thankfully, those women had Mary Koss to tell them they were "victims" because they might have gone through their entire lives not knowing it. See, Koss, and now Kate Harding, know better than most women. Ignore, for a moment, that this is a most un-feminist sentiment. As Heather MacDonald said, "ignoring women’s own interpretations of their experiences [is] supposedly the most grievous sin in the feminist political code." Kind of like how we're supposed to believe every woman who claims she was raped, but to disbelieve every woman who recants her rape claim.
Seriously, Ms. Harding, you're not really so stupid that you don't know miscommunication is a major problem? I mean, you're not, are you? Alcohol-induced misunderstandings are the elephant in the room that most folks just don't care to discuss. The fact that Ms. Harding doesn't seem to know that is not surprising. In my experience, the typical feminist doesn't have the first clue that "consent" has nothing whatsoever to do with an accuser's subjective or secret desires, whims, or beliefs, as opposed to her outward manifestations of willingness to engage in sexual relations. The typical feminist doesn't think there is any such thing as "miscommunication" because rape occurs whenever the woman says it occurs, even if it's hours, days, weeks, months, or years after the fact. Which kind of tells you everything you need to know about the typical feminist.
"Afterwards, she didn’t behave like I think a victim should."
This is among my favorites.
Cite any behavior -- she reported right away/she waited forty years/she was excitable/she was calm/she laughed/she cried/her narrative was evasive/her narrative was painstakingly detailed -- any and all of it is evidence of rape. How dare anyone assert that even the behavior of an obvious liar might possibly suggest dishonesty. The only thing that matters is that a claim of rape has been made -- its timing, the accuser's demeanor, the far-fetchedness of her claim -- you see, none of that matters. And your misogynistic notions of how a rape victim should act are utterly worthless, of course, compared to a feminist's (because, again, every feminist has had all manner of profound life experience that has somehow completely eluded the rest of us).
Make sense to you? Me neither.
I remember the wise jurist I once worked for asking a "rape victim" advocate in open court why evidence of post-traumatic stress syndrome should be admissible for rape cases and not, for example, for robbery cases when someone has had a gun pointed at his head. The non-answer the judge received spoke volumes about the arrogance of the sexual grievance industry.
“She’s just mad and trying to punish him."
Um, yeah. Right. That's a real far-fetched reason, isn't it? Ha ha. Like these recent cases we've reported on here: the young woman who had her boyfriend arrested for rape because he took too long to buy cigarettes. Or, remember the women who didn't want to pay cab fares, so they accused innocent cab drivers -- working class nobodys -- of rape, just to hurt them? How about the girl who wanted to get back at her teen ex-boyfriend: her rape lie not only got him arrested and convicted, but two of his friends as well. Or the woman who wanted to get back at her ex-boyfriend for breaking it off, so she falsely accused him of rape, and candidly admitted: "I just wanted him to be hurt because of what he’d done." Or the women who called the police and falsely claimed her ex was having sex with a minor. Or the young woman who told a rape lie about her young ex-boyfriend "because she wanted him to feel extreme pain."
Remember them, Ms. Harding? Of course you don't.
Then there was the woman who sent a man to prison for five years because she was bored. And the woman out for revenge after a road rage incident. And the woman who tried to destroy the life of a man she didn't even know because he wouldn't give her a beer. And the maid who accused her employer of rape because she didn't like her workload. And the girl who accused a man of rape for throwing a flower at her. And the woman who falsely accused her lover of rape because he had the bad manners to go speak with a roommate after having sex instead of staying with her. And the woman who caused three men to be interrogated for rapes they didn't commit, all because she wanted a day off from work.
Some women need no excuse at all. An 18-year-year-old boy was hauled out of class and arrested on a random false rape claim by a girl he'd never met. He was jailed for a month. Oh, and let's not forget the serial false accusers. Can't forget them.
So, yeah, Ms. Harding. That's really a far-fetched claim you cited there. Yep. You are one persuasive feminist, you are.
And we could go on and on, but you get the point. The fact is, no group on earth is more adept at inventing straw men than the sexual grievance industry. Their insistence has taken on the qualities of a cult with people like Kate Harding repeating their chants with mindless zombie-like repetition. Except they sprinkle it with the "f" word every couple of sentences. You know, to show us how empowered and angry they are.