Friday, February 26, 2016

It is easier to believe that young men would rape a woman than to believe a woman would have unconventional sex

Yesterday we reported on a bizarre injustice where a woman had sex with with her father and five underage boys (one as young as 14) then falsely accused the boys of rape. The woman recanted, but the District Attorney won't charge her for statutory rape or for making a false rape claim. Beyond that, the DA singled out the boys' conduct and said it was "reprehensible and wrong."

The story is unconscionable on every conceivable level--read our post on it, but not on an empty stomach.

But here's a comment on it from someone at Reddit, and it underscores an anti-male bias, not to mention the hurdles the wrongly accused face:
. . . . I find the whole thing very odd. 
A young woman is having sex with her father in a park, and then a small pack of boys show up and take turns having consensual sex with her? 
My instincts hearing facts like that are that the woman is low intelligence - likely intellectually disabled. She's being abused by her father, and then a group of boys show up, and take advantage of the situation. 
Unless she's some kind of crazy nymphomaniac, how do we find consensual sex in these facts?
The writer is correct about one thing, the "whole thing [is] very odd." But as we explained in our post yesterday, the DA is a self-promoting crusader for women. It is most doubtful that he would have accepted the recantation if the woman had learning disabilities or had been incapacitated at the time of the sexual encounter.

At the heart of the comment is something troubling, even sinister. This writer--and, from our experience, a lot of people--are more willing to believe that a group of young men or boys would do the most heinous thing imaginable to a young woman than believe that a young woman would willingly engage in an unconventional sex act. We saw these same sorts of attitudes expressed in connection with the Hofstra case and in many others.

This sort of thinking is what give false rape accusers the ammunition they need to tell their lies. Feminist gadfly Amanda Marcotte once wrote that "the idea that it's shameful to just have sex because you want to" is "the reason that you have false rape accusations in the first place." Marcotte noted that "women who aren't ashamed of having sexual adventures like group sex-even ones that go bad-don't use rape accusations to cover up their choices. It's the women who are afraid they'll be called sluts if it gets out that make up these rape stories."

Is there any wonder why false accusers tell rape lies? They tell them because they know they will get away with them. As one pundit wrote about the Hofstra case where a woman had consensual sex with five men: she just knew that the young woman said "Stop it!," "I want to leave!" "Get off me!" and "Help!" This, despite the fact that the accuser in the Hofstra case never said any of those things--she engaged in consensual sex with a group of strangers then lied about to "explain" the encounter in case her boyfriend or others found out.

It makes the head spin. It's easier to believe that young men and boys would outright rape a woman--use another human being as their sexual plaything--than to believe the woman would dare engage in unconventional sex that "nice girls" don't engage in.

What a damning indictment of young men and boys.