This woman thinks all men support rape

[The Chaos Heart]

The definition of "coercion" should be strictly limited to physical force. There is no such thing as "psychological, emotional, or economic" coercion.

So death threats have no effect? Interesting. And false.

To emphasize your point, here is the legal definition of coercion (the only one that matters).

The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another's freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim's reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an official to do so.

A defense asserted in a criminal prosecution that a person who committed a crime did not do so of his or her own free will, but only because the individual was compelled by another through the use of physical force or threat of immediate serious bodily injury or death.

[Labno]

People like the woman in the OP really take the meaning out of the word rape. I find it quite bad that she treats rape in such a casual manner (essentially calling all men ever rapists or rape-supporters, not because of anything concerning rape, but because of things like "He sexually objectifies lesbians or lesbian sexual activity" for example - what, do lesbians not exist,and all lesbian sex is rape or something?). She needs to learn what supporting rape actually means. All her crap about "rape supporting" is actually just a pathetic excuse to rage at men, maybe she got cheated on once or something. A pitiful woman whom I would hope never to meet.

This X 10,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000,­000

[Keronians]

When I read hateful trash like that article, I am reminded of why I am a staunch anti-feminist. Feminism is nothing more than a movement founded around the hatred of men. One of the biggest problems in our society today is that we have defined "rape" so broadly. Therefore, I will make it clear what is a rape and what is NOT a rape:

If a woman consents, it is NOT rape. If a woman chooses voluntarily to put herself under the influence of drugs or alcohol and consents, it is NOT rape (to argue otherwise is to argue that people who are drunk and/or high are not responsible for their actions and therefore that drunk drivers who kill people should not be punished for their crimes). If a woman does not resist, it is NOT rape (because it is impossible to prove a rape accusation if there is no evidence of resistance). The definition of "coercion" should be strictly limited to physical force. There is no such thing as "psychological, emotional, or economic" coercion.

If somebody provides advice to women on how to avoid being raped, that is NOT "victim blaming" any more than it is "victim blaming" to provide advice on how to avoid being robbed.

There are legitimate problems with our current rape laws. For one thing, there are insufficient protections for the falsely accused. For another thing, the definition of "rape" is way too broad. These things need to be reformed.

Women should have equal rights. They should NOT have special privileges of any kind (such as those advocated by the "feminist" A.K.A. "female supremacist" movement).

When I read ... foolishness like this, I am reminded why we need feminism all the more.

I believe he has confused feminism with female chauvinism.

There are some points, though, that make sense in his post. Others, not so much. Some, deserving a facepalm.

[Samuraikoku]

There are some points, though, that make sense in his post. Others, not so much. Some, deserving a facepalm.

Or a Katana slash to his neck.

[Amazonnia]

My lord...how about even looking at a woman? Jesus there's a lot wrong with this. I mean seriously? Just because he's watching porn with a woman in it or going pro-choice or anti-abortion is proof he's a rapist. Just no honestly just no. She shouldn't have left the kitchen. Sorry for the sexist joke but she shouldn't have (being female myself).

[Samuraikoku]

She shouldn't have left the kitchen. Sorry for the sexist joke but she shouldn't have (being female myself).

Interesting to hear a woman using a sexist joke. I bet under her logic, you'd be a rape supporter yourself even belonging to her same gender.

But I honestly I don't want us men to be called like that. I at least try not to give any reason why women should hate us.

[Amazonnia]

Interesting to hear a woman using a sexist joke. I bet under her logic, you'd be a rape supporter yourself even belonging to her same gender.

But I honestly I don't want us men to be called like that. I at least try not to give any reason why women should hate us.

I don't feel men should be called rapist unless they actually did something more reasonable such as without consent for being labeled such a thing. I mean really men are wonderful just not everyone one of them should be called a rapist for even looking at a woman.

[Geniasis]

I have to imagine that'd be horrible. To be accused of a crime so heinous, a crime I would never commit in a thousand years, but have to defend myself to potential employers, neighbors... everyone, and still have to live with a stigma I don't deserve. Just because it's "probably true"?

The chances of that happening are small. So small as to be entirely insignificant. But it's the idea of having my life essentially ruined through no fault of my own, and without any control whatsoever, that absolutely terrifies me.

...

That was a dreadfully ironic post, wasn't it?

It is bad. In fact, I have such a crushing fear of being falsely accused of rape, murder, etc., that I refuse to disagree with people too much in public, especially women, lest I anger them. I just have this extreme phobia that I'll piss off a women and then be sent to prison for the rest of my life. I prefer to minimize human contact so that none of you can conspire against me. Every woman wants to accuse me of rape. Every man is ready to kill me.

Thanks, but I prefer to live a life with absolutely no sex (for many reasons, including the facts that it's both unhygienic and unappealing), no friends or relationships, and minimal contact with other humans. You're all monsters and you want to destroy me.

Your point is well-taken. I suppose it is silly to pay any serious mind to such an unlikely scenario.

[Nationstatelandsville]

Interesting to hear a woman using a sexist joke. I bet under her logic, you'd be a rape supporter yourself even belonging to her same gender.

But I honestly I don't want us men to be called like that. I at least try not to give any reason why women should hate us.

I don't feel men should be called rapist unless they actually did something more reasonable such as without consent for being labeled such a thing. I mean really men are wonderful just not everyone one of them should be called a rapist for even looking at a woman.

A sane opinion... rare on NSG.

[French Union]

Based on that list, I'm a supporter of rape. I learned something new about myself.

[Nationstatelandsville]

Based on that list, I'm a supporter of rape. I learned something new about myself.

Me too. I never knew I was an evil person before.

[Arkinesia]

When I read hateful trash like that article, I am reminded of why I am a staunch anti-feminist. Feminism is nothing more than a movement founded around the hatred of men.

When I read misogynistic views like this it reminds me why certain people should be decapitated. And I'm speaking as a man who respects women.

And doesn't hatefuck the shit out of them.

Because that's pretty much what Turmoilandia wants. Derp.

You know what I do miss, though? Interests that are purely masculine. We're losing them wholesale.

I mean, we even have people who think that Ford Mustangs are girly cars. Seriously?! We don't even have manly cars anymore?!

[Geniasis]

Based on that list, I'm a supporter of rape. I learned something new about myself.

Me too. I never knew I was an evil person before.

I knew. But nobody believed me. They all said I was crazy.

But I knew.

[Nationstatelandsville]

Me too. I never knew I was an evil person before.

I knew. But nobody believed me. They all said I was crazy.

But I knew.

You're both right. You are crazy AND evil.

Back on subject, it's just not fair for her to say all men support rape. Has she ever even left her house? She's probably afraid to. Might get raped.

[Person012345]

It is bad. In fact, I have such a crushing fear of being falsely accused of rape, murder, etc., that I refuse to disagree with people too much in public, especially women, lest I anger them. I just have this extreme phobia that I'll piss off a women and then be sent to prison for the rest of my life. I prefer to minimize human contact so that none of you can conspire against me. Every woman wants to accuse me of rape. Every man is ready to kill me.

Thanks, but I prefer to live a life with absolutely no sex (for many reasons, including the facts that it's both unhygienic and unappealing), no friends or relationships, and minimal contact with other humans. You're all monsters and you want to destroy me.

Your point is well-taken. I suppose it is silly to pay any serious mind to such an unlikely scenario.

Unlikely for some. -.-'

[Unhealthy2]

Your point is well-taken. I suppose it is silly to pay any serious mind to such an unlikely scenario.

What do you mean? I was completely serious. By choice, I have no friends and never will. By choice, I will never engage in any sort of sexual activity with anyone.

[Tahar Joblis]

Wow. Just....wow. If we want to talk about "facts that have come up before on NSG," the fact that you could seriously say something this ridiculously offensive to ME...well, it says a lot about you.

You're offended by my suggestion that you lack empathy, or my suggestion that you are unlikely to be the subject of a false rape accusations?

I'm trying to educate you on a matter upon which you appear to know absolutely nothing; to wit, the impact of a false rape accusation on someone's life. The impact that even rumors of sexual impropriety have on the life of an ordinary man.

Now, in contrast to that, NB, men like TJ see the vigorous application of rape laws to certain "romantic situations" as a dangerous thing. In particular, since TJ is unlikely to be raped, the greatest danger to him is the possibility of a misunderstanding or - worse - a false accusation. He wants his rights as a prospective criminal defendant zealously upheld, because that's the only likely way in which he'll ever be involved in a rape case. It's not that he wants to have the right to rape his dates; he just doesn't want to be convicted of a crime he didn't commit (or any other man, for that matter).

ASB, I would recommend you read the links provided in my post.

However, I'll tell you the story of a man falsely accused of rape, whom I knew. There was a rather frightening episode in the park one day. Several people were attacked by a man wearing a false mustache and carrying a gun, among them a woman, who was raped. Police noticed an athletic young fellow in the area, and one of the victims tentatively identified him as the attacker.

He didn't have a gun or a false mustache on him, but on the basis of this identification, the police arrested him, and the headlines hit the papers the next day. The rumor mill spun at high speed. He was 19 with a promisingly bright future ahead of him. Within days, a large number of friends, former classmates, and neighbors had worked out justifications for themselves as to why this nice young man committed the shocking attack.

DNA testing subsequently proved he wasn't the attacker; but the damage was already done, and with the low confidence people have in the justice system - well, as I pointedly told TNB before in an earlier thread:

But false conviction isn't really the big problem with false accusations. Lack of faith in the justice system is. If I am accused of rape and found innocent in court, everybody knows rape cases have low conviction rapes, so my reputation may be ruined anyway. And news of the case closing with my innocence may not spread as far as the false accusation in any event.

Everybody knows that rape is difficult to prove. And so, just as TNB confessed to doing earlier in the thread, some of them treat an accusation of rape as sufficient to decide that someone IS a rapist. It is not terribly surprising that this young man found himself surrounded thereafter by persistent dark rumors, spread by the higher velocity of the story of the attack than the subsequent retraction; that he was unsettled by the traumatic experience of spending several weeks treated as a presumed violent rapist by the police and the community; and that his life completely derailed and never recovered.

Then, several years later, having never regained his equilibrium, he shot himself.

And so, when I see someone like TNB blithely claiming that false accusations of rape are statistically negligible and never cause anyone harm anyway because "society condones rape," well, I have ample reason to object; and my assertion that false rape accusations can and do ruin lives is based on very real and quite depressing evidence from my own home town.

[Tahar Joblis]

What a nonsensically untrue statement. The very design of a presumption of innocence creates the very real fact that a great many guilty people are not convicted of any crime. To say that if they aren't convicted of rape means they are not rapists is absurd, and untrue. It means that they have not been convicted of the crime of rape. Not that they didn't commit it.

And even if it were true, that would mean 58% of 92% of accusations, would mean still around 53.3%, which is more than half, and STILL makes the claim that "generally people accused of rape are rapists" true, something is "generally true" if it happens most of the time. 53.3% is still most of the time.

It's also extremely bad form to argue that if someone isn’t convicted of rape then they’re not a rapist, but in the same breath argue that 10% of those who are convicted aren’t rapists. You can not have it both ways, and maintain a shred of intellectual honesty. Either you’re not a rapist if you’re not convicted (in which case you are a rapist if you are convicted), or that conviction does not mean, as a matter of fact, one way or another.

So if you want to factor in your 10% of “convicted rapists who are not rapists” then it’s only fair to factor in those who are, in fact, rapists, but weren’t actually convicted.

Either way you slice it, that number comes out well north of 50%.

Neo Art, there's a small additional problem; rape charges that are unfounded are not the only rape accusations which exist which are not brought to trial. The example I lay out above, in fact, is an example of such; a suspect was arrested, but it was later determined that the suspect was, in fact, innocent of rape, though rape had in fact occurred. IIRC, most rape accusations do not lead to a trial, hence the occasional citation of very low "rape conviction rates."

I looked extensively at this during a previous thread, and my conclusion on reviewing the literature is that: Any assertions about the false rape allegations being a minority or majority of accusations made are not founded on particularly solid empirical evidence. They rely heavily on interpretation and assumptions that are in most cases worth questioning.

[Kazomal]

Except you don't usually know all the facts.

We NEVER know ALL the facts. As TNG very well pointed out, you can never know anything for an absolute FACT, but to shield yourself behind some nonsensical "but we don't know all the facts!" in circumstances like this creates a bizarre double standard.

If everything you know points towards your child's babysitter being a horrific murderer of children, even if you don't know it for a FACT, would you keep letting this person watch your children when you're gone?

Of fucking course you wouldn't. So stop pretending that you live by some bizarre "judge not before we have all the facts" standard that no human being alive uses.

Except some of us, in fact, do not judge in the absence of evidence, nor do we assume someone is guilty just because they were accused of a crime.

When I read hateful trash like that article, I am reminded of why I am a staunch anti-feminist. Feminism is nothing more than a movement founded around the hatred of men.

[Geniasis]

Your point is well-taken. I suppose it is silly to pay any serious mind to such an unlikely scenario.

What do you mean? I was completely serious. By choice, I have no friends and never will. By choice, I will never engage in any sort of sexual activity with anyone.

Oh. I assumed you were taking my concern to the absolute extreme in order to demonstrate how letting myself be controlled by irrational fear is a path that ends with a life spent lived in fear, a life left unenjoyed and unfulfilled. Basically that if the only way to truly protect myself was by shutting myself down from any interpersonal relationships, then perhaps it's a risk worth taking.

That's what I got out of it, anyway.

[Farnhamia]

So death threats have no effect? Interesting. And false.

To emphasize your point, here is the legal definition of coercion (the only one that matters).

The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another's freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim's reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an official to do so.

A defense asserted in a criminal prosecution that a person who committed a crime did not do so of his or her own free will, but only because the individual was compelled by another through the use of physical force or threat of immediate serious bodily injury or death.

Please correct the quotes in your post. I never said whatit appears I did, Turmoilandia did.

[Tahar Joblis]

Well, that would make only the second time that's happened in the last eight years as far as I'm aware. I can hold my shit together just fine.

This is holding your shit together? Being patronising and dismissive? "Poor little TNB just doesn't know how to empathise with men. I'll just make her out to be a total idiot and a callous bitch, over and over again, until she learns to take other people's feelings into account"

I do like sticking to the truth and repeating it until people learn. It would be nice if TNB did learn to take other people's feelings into account, and also nice if she spent the time and effort on analyzing cause and effect carefully.

Unfortunately, I'm dead serious with that; at this point, after having debated TNB on this topic a couple times, concluding that she is failing to exercise empathy - failing to put herself in the shoes of either the accuser or recipient in a realistic false rape accusation scenario - seems parsimonious, if somewhat depressing. If I were dismissing her, I wouldn't even be actually addressing what she said or attempting to analyze it. If you want to see an example of someone being dismissive, please observe this post, in which TNB, faced with a detailed rebuttal and harsh criticism, reacts by saying she will "never take [you] remotely seriously again."

That, Ifreann, is dismissing someone: Ignoring the material substance of what they say while telling them you're not going to listen to what they say. Patronizing? Oh, I'll grant "patronizing," since I am quite confident that I am right and she is wrong; and my suggesting that her failure to learn from my repeated attempts at instructing her on matters which I believe her to be in error is a failing on her part could easily be considered patronizing. I don't particularly try to be patronizing, but unfortunately, I do tend to start talking down to people when they start being stubborn about their mistakes.

[Wiztopia]

And so, when I see someone like TNB blithely claiming that false accusations of rape are statistically negligible and never cause anyone harm anyway because "society condones rape," well, I have ample reason to object; and my assertion that false rape accusations can and do ruin lives is based on very real and quite depressing evidence from my own home town.

Where did she say that?

[The Congregationists]

This is holding your shit together? Being patronising and dismissive? "Poor little TNB just doesn't know how to empathise with men. I'll just make her out to be a total idiot and a callous bitch, over and over again, until she learns to take other people's feelings into account"

I do like sticking to the truth and repeating it until people learn. It would be nice if TNB did learn to take other people's feelings into account, and also nice if she spent the time and effort on analyzing cause and effect carefully.

Unfortunately, I'm dead serious with that; at this point, after having debated TNB on this topic a couple times, concluding that she is failing to exercise empathy - failing to put herself in the shoes of either the accuser or recipient in a realistic false rape accusation scenario - seems parsimonious, if somewhat depressing. If I were dismissing her, I wouldn't even be actually addressing what she said or attempting to analyze it. If you want to see an example of someone being dismissive, please observe this post, in which TNB, faced with a detailed rebuttal and harsh criticism, reacts by saying she will "never take [you] remotely seriously again."

That, Ifreann, is dismissing someone: Ignoring the material substance of what they say while telling them you're not going to listen to what they say. Patronizing? Oh, I'll grant "patronizing," since I am quite confident that I am right and she is wrong; and my suggesting that her failure to learn from my repeated attempts at instructing her on matters which I believe her to be in error is a failing on her part could easily be considered patronizing. I don't particularly try to be patronizing, but unfortunately, I do tend to start talking down to people when they start being stubborn about their mistakes.

When the response finally comes, care to bet whether it will be rational, well thought out and supported by examples and facts, or it will be sarcastic and full of ad-hominems? If I had money to bet ...

What's very tragic and disheartening about this whole conversation is that it's being reduced to "teams" - to "us" vs "them", and if it were the right "us" vs "them" that would be one thing. But seeing this whole thing in terms of "boys vs girls", one being good and the other evil and therefore whatever actions taken by the side branded "good" are justifiable and defensible because the right side did them, and whatever evils suffered by the side branded "bad" is fine because they're the side that's bad, is entirely wrong. I don't have to be a woman to recognize that rape is horrible. I don't have to be a man to recognize that being falsely accused of rape is horrible. Both are horrible. Which is worse? Why ask? Trying to use the amount of suffering "your side" had endured relative to the "other side" so as to make yourself all the more righteous doesn't wash. Wounds do not make one righteous.

So here's a better way of looking at this. Instead of demonizing one sex or the other, let's think of this in terms of "humanity" vs "inhumanity." Rape = inhumanity. Knowingly falsely accusing someone of rape = inhumanity. Justifying, excusing, trivializing or dismissing rape = inhumanity. Justifying, excusing, trivializing or dismissing false accusations of rape = inhumanity. When inhumanity wins, everybody loses. Because boys against girls isn't how this world works. We're in it together. I don't have to chose which I deplore more. I deplore both. It doesn't matter to me which of the two happens more. If either happen once, it happens too often. But I will not base my decision on who to empathise with based on their genitals. If I do, I do my part to ensure that a cycle of retribution is perpetuated rather than halted. I think we're all better than this.

[Tahar Joblis]

And so, when I see someone like TNB blithely claiming that false accusations of rape are statistically negligible and never cause anyone harm anyway because "society condones rape," well, I have ample reason to object; and my assertion that false rape accusations can and do ruin lives is based on very real and quite depressing evidence from my own home town.

Where did she say that?

Well, I would take this to be her saying that sort of thing about false accusations (please pay particular attention to the bolded parts):

I'm not disputing that being accused of a crime can lead some people to think you might be a criminal and treat you accordingly. I'm disputing that this happens with rape to anywhere near the degree that some seem to suggest, because I can't honestly think of any well-known alleged rapist whose life got "ruined," and I can think of quite a few whose lives are just fine. (And I'm disputing that it's a particularly bad thing if people treat alleged rapists like possible criminals, since the alternative would seem to be, "If someone tells you that a guy you know raped her, you should assume she is lying and never doubt his complete innocence." Me, I think the appropriate response is to assume she's probably but not certainly telling the truth - because that's what statistics support - then examine the evidence, and come to the best conclusion you can based on it...which means being accused of rape SHOULD generally ruin lives, because generally, being accused of rape means you're a fucking rapist.)

Here, we have TNB blithely dismissing that false accusations happen with any significant frequency. As is generally the case, she mixes some more reasonable-sounding statements in, but when you look at the whole of what she's said, it's clear she's endorsing a ; "generally, being accused of rape means you're a fucking rapist" clarifies that she not only believes an accusation is more likely to be true than not, but that this probability is high enough to assert it as a general case. That not being a rapist is the exception that really requires demonstration. That simply being accused of rape should ruin lives.

Of course, her standard of ruining a life relies on her familiarity with celebrities accused of rape, never minding, of course, that celebrities often get away with quite a lot, and also not seeming to notice that even the ones that she brought up had to react in very serious ways to rape allegations. (Polanski, of course, admitting guilt and fleeing the country; Kobe's PR team working overtime to get his reputation back on track.)

When someone says that being accused of rape should generally ruin lives, they're dismissing the sort of case that I brought up to TNB last fall and mentioned again in this thread, and of course totally ignoring the more disturbing cases in which the court concludes the alleged victim is actually lying. The stigma attached to being a rapist is strong enough that it's not actually all that uncommon to see men respond to a public accusation of rape with attempts at suicide when faced with the prospect of having to live with that stigma - guilty or innocent.

Regarding the "condoned" issue, I refer you to the first post that she made in this thread which I choose to object strenuously to:

The saddest part is that, fundamentally, her essential point is entirely true: the vast majority of men engage in some behavior that contributes, directly or indirectly, to a culture in which rape is routinely condoned.

"Routinely condoned." Routinely condoned. Hm, wonder why someone would consider committing suicide due to their name being ruined for doing something that is "routinely condoned." We don't exactly treat rape charges like speeding infractions here.