It's about time women are punished for false rape claims

[Intangelon]

Maybe if the man - after losing job, credibility etc. etc. - also had a hot-dog shoved down his urethra, the woman lying about the rape would be equal to a rape crime.

Edit: No. Then it just turns into a rape crime. I have to ponder this further. I feel it must involve hot-dogs.

You, my good man, are one funny person.

[Intangelon]

Knowing this, I still say that it would be worse for me to be accused of rape and have people around me actually believe it. I would likely lose my job. My wife would divorce me in a heartbeat, and I would probably lose access to my children. My church would turn their back on me, my neighbors would shun me. I could lose my livelihood, my home, my standing, everything over the accusation of rape. Could any of that happen to me if I were actually raped? Not even close. Not even with the added stigma of being a male victim of a female-perpetrated rape.

So you admit that your particular sect of God's children would turn their backs on your in your hour of need?

That is one hell of a Freudian slip, my friend.

It goes with the Jungian dress, don't'cha know.

Seriously though, I mentioned that earlier, albeit not quite as kindly as you did.

[Barringtonia]

Bolding and capitalising words don't erase the conversation,

The conversation that led to your statement start with someone else saying the punishments should be equal, Ashmoria said no, and then the relative effects of rape over false accusation led to your statement that you'd get over rape faster than a false accusation,

Whether you technically stated something or not is irrelevant given it's 'implied', which it clearly is.

So you're unwilling to admit you're a liar. Good to know. At least you no longer seem to be stating outright that I somehow said a false accusation should result in a jail sentence equal to that which would be given to a rapist.

Oh dear,

Well, he was technically correct in that he'd laid out his thoughts on what the punishment should be for false claims of rape, and it wasn't the same jail-time as a rapist, which is what you'd said he'd implied.

However, given he sees rape as no worse than a false accusation, in fact he implies it's a lesser crime in that he believes he would get over rape quicker than a false accusation against him, then the implied similar punishment is there.

As I said, what's written is in print, I find it funny that you're the one claiming people are lying,

[Epicnopolis]

...WHAT IS WITH EVERYONE MAKING THE CRAPPY TITLES THAT ARE HARSH?!

[Intangelon]

...WHAT IS WITH EVERYONE MAKING THE CrAPPY TITLES THAT ARE HARSH?!

What now?

[Ryadn]

This is what happens when feminism gets power. They dont want equality, they want a friggin advantage, they wont stop untill humanity is like a bee/ant society.

One woman having thousands of offspring who build massive cities and fill them with excreta?

I've never heard of "feminism" (which, by the way, is a disembodied concept, and doesn't take a plural pronoun) trying to institute a society like that, but it does sound pretty cool.

Pity human biology isn't designed for that kind of thing.

I'd be pretty happy with just a society free of shame attached to sex, where rape does not exist. I know it sounds crazy, but not only is it possible... it exists.

[Ryadn]

You probably would have done a world of a lot better if you had entitled this thread "It's about time people are punished for false rape claims."

After all, men can be raped just as much as women, and men can make a false report about it just as much as women.

I haven't found a single instance of man even being accused of falsely crying rape. Children, yes, but that's another can of worms I deliberately want to avoid. Sorry, it appears to be a gendered problem. It would be pointless to pretend otherwise simply for the sake of appeasing your need to be PC. Nor do I believe for a second that this thread would have gone any differently even if I had made some idiotic point of being gender neutral about an issue that doesn't actually appear to be gender neutral.

That's funny, because I searched yahoo for "man makes false rape accusation" and found one on the first page. If your search skills are that poor, it's not a surprise you seem to think false accusations are an overwhelming problem.

[Ryadn]

I don't think so.

You are going on and on about how false accusations destroy lives, and I have no trouble believing that they do. What I have trouble believing is that they're anywhere near as common as you seem to think they are. Bottle has already shown how rare they are, and I think making this kind of showy outrage over something that happens less frequently than deaths from lightning strike is disingenuous.

Honestly, if anybody is interested in having a discussion about the ACTUAL issues surrounding false rape arrests or convictions, I'd be happy to do that. I think we'd probably get farther with it if Hiddenrun's side-tracks were just ignored.

For instance, one of the most serious problems with our justice system right now is the fact that many of our "core" forensic evidence methods are not scientifically based. Even fingerprint identification, which is the most classic example out there, has fucktons of problems with it. Shows like CSI make it seem like there's pure science behind things like identifying soil traces, when the reality is that the procedures often don't rely on sound double-blind methods or controls.

Another issue that could be discussed is ways in which witness testimony is handled. Interview procedure, in particular, is a major problem. When interviewing a person who has just experienced something traumatic, it can be extremely easy to (unintentionally!) influence what they tell you, leading to the gathering of false information.

A third, and perhaps most serious, concern is the angle of prosecution. How prosecutors decide when/if to proceed with an investigation is not always based on the evidence...but is that necessarily a bad thing? Good debate to be had on that one.

All very interesting points. In re: witness interviews, I remember seeing a show a few months ago (Dateline, 60 Minutes, something like that) about a man who was falsely convicted of a rape (that actually occurred) because the victim picked him out in a photo and live lineup. It highlighted the problems with eye-witness testimony, but most especially the methods used to prompt memory---such as showing the victim a lineup without first thoroughly explaining that there is no pressure to identify anyone, and that the perpetrator may not BE in the lineup in the first place.

[Ryadn]

Exactly why this point is being brought up. Im in favor of punishment whoever is the guilty party in this matter. Women always get the better side and the benefit of the doubt.

Which is why the VAST majority of reported rapes don't even go to trial, let alone conviction. Yeah, that's some benefit of the doubt.

[Ryadn]

because the accused is aquitted, that doesn't mean the victim filed a false report.

It probably does though. It's pretty easy to prove or disprove a rape charge.

You've just made the OP's arguments seem like the soundest logic in the universe. This is one of the most blatant and despicable lies I have heard.

[Neo Art]

All very interesting points. In re: witness interviews, I remember seeing a show a few months ago (Dateline, 60 Minutes, something like that) about a man who was falsely convicted of a rape (that actually occurred) because the victim picked him out in a photo and live lineup. It highlighted the problems with eye-witness testimony, but most especially the methods used to prompt memory---such as showing the victim a lineup without first thoroughly explaining that there is no pressure to identify anyone, and that the perpetrator may not BE in the lineup in the first place.

There have been studies about eye witness panels, and some states have banned the use of certain "fake" lineups, which contain one suspect, and 4-5 other people, usually other cops/public servants who fit a general description, and, most importantly, have alibis. The concern has been that the "fake" people, knowing they did nothing wrong, and are not really in any risk, don't show any aura or look of concern. A suspect, even an innocent one, might be nervous in the lineup, and show it as such. Subtle cues might cause a witness to identify the "real" suspect, just because he looks nervous.

[Ryadn]

All very interesting points. In re: witness interviews, I remember seeing a show a few months ago (Dateline, 60 Minutes, something like that) about a man who was falsely convicted of a rape (that actually occurred) because the victim picked him out in a photo and live lineup. It highlighted the problems with eye-witness testimony, but most especially the methods used to prompt memory---such as showing the victim a lineup without first thoroughly explaining that there is no pressure to identify anyone, and that the perpetrator may not BE in the lineup in the first place.

There have been studies about eye witness panels, and some states have banned the use of certain "fake" lineups, which contain one suspect, and 4-5 other people, usually other cops/public servants who fit a general description, and, most importantly, have alibis. The concern has been that the "fake" people, knowing they did nothing wrong, and are not really in any risk, don't show any aura or look of concern. A suspect, even an innocent one, might be nervous in the lineup, and show it as such. Subtle cues might cause a witness to identify the "real" suspect, just because he looks nervous.

Sounds totally plausible to me. I'd be nervous in a line-up if I was suspected of running a red light. And there's such a HUGE possibility that the actual rapist/perpetrator isn't even there.

[Allbeama]

This is what happens when feminism gets power. They dont want equality, they want a friggin advantage, they wont stop untill humanity is like a bee/ant society.

I called it too soon. This is a Misogynistic troll^^^

[Ryadn]

This is what happens when feminism gets power. They dont want equality, they want a friggin advantage, they wont stop untill humanity is like a bee/ant society.

I called it too soon. This is a Misogynistic troll^^^

Aw, be generous---there's plenty of room in NSG for multiple misogynistic trolls.

[Geniasis]

Seriously though, I mentioned that earlier, albeit not quite as kindly as you did.

Yeah, but I saw it in his post and really wanted to point it out. So I figured what the hell and mentioned it again. Couldn't hurt, right?

[JuNii]

because the accused is aquitted, that doesn't mean the victim filed a false report.

It probably does though. It's pretty easy to prove or disprove a rape charge.

You've just made the OP's arguments seem like the soundest logic in the universe. This is one of the most blatant and despicable lies I have heard.

I'm waiting for his explination as to why it's pretty easy to prove or disprove...

[Todd Bridges]

Yes. It is always indecent to knowingly falsely accuse an innocent man. I expect better from women who engage in such insidious behavior.

[Meoton]

Remember, just because there is not a conviction in a rape trial, doesn't mean she made a false rape claim.
It just means they did not prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt to a bunch a people not smart enough to get out of jury duty. Remember OJ's first trial back in the 90's.
In most places, making false reports of crimes is a crime itself and if they have evidence someone did make a false report, they arrest them.

[Bottle]

Remember, just because there is not a conviction in a rape trial, doesn't mean she made a false rape claim.
It just means they did not prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt to a bunch a people not smart enough to get out of jury duty. Remember OJ's first trial back in the 90's.
In most places, making false reports of crimes is a crime itself and if they have evidence someone did make a false report, they arrest them.

Shhh. This is impossible. The only possible reason a person would be acquitted would be if they didn't do anything wrong.

Which leads us to the inescapable conclusion that 99% of women who claim they were raped are lying whores. After all, at least 80% of the rape cases that make it to trial don't end in a conviction, and we know that only a tiny fraction of actual rape cases make it to trial. Hence, all those non-convicted men MUST be falsely accused by lying bitches who just want to ruin their reputations.

I guess this is how some guys convince themselves that rape isn't that big a deal; the fact that there is such a shockingly low conviction rate for rape is used to prove that rape doesn't actually happen!

[Saint Jade IV]

Remember, just because there is not a conviction in a rape trial, doesn't mean she made a false rape claim.
It just means they did not prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt to a bunch a people not smart enough to get out of jury duty. Remember OJ's first trial back in the 90's.
In most places, making false reports of crimes is a crime itself and if they have evidence someone did make a false report, they arrest them.

Shhh. This is impossible. The only possible reason a person would be acquitted would be if they didn't do anything wrong.

Which leads us to the inescapable conclusion that 99% of women who claim they were raped are lying whores. After all, at least 80% of the rape cases that make it to trial don't end in a conviction, and we know that only a tiny fraction of actual rape cases make it to trial. Hence, all those non-convicted men MUST be falsely accused by lying bitches who just want to ruin their reputations.

I guess this is how some guys convince themselves that rape isn't that big a deal; the fact that there is such a shockingly low conviction rate for rape is used to prove that rape doesn't actually happen!

Jeez I thought everybody knew that

[The Alma Mater]

I guess this is how some guys convince themselves that rape isn't that big a deal; the fact that there is such a shockingly low conviction rate for rape is used to prove that rape doesn't actually happen!

Of course, it IS also true that quite a few women call something rape while it really is not that black and white (e.g. "I did not want it, but did not say anything"), because they do not wish to admit to themselves or others that the sex was their own (bad) choice, or to deliberately hurt people. Not a majority (I hope) - but the "women would NEVER lie about such a thing" myth is just as persistant.

[Bottle]

I guess this is how some guys convince themselves that rape isn't that big a deal; the fact that there is such a shockingly low conviction rate for rape is used to prove that rape doesn't actually happen!

Of course, it IS also true that quite a few women call something rape while it really is not that black and white (e.g. "I did not want it, but did not say anything"), because they do not wish to admit to themselves or others that the sex was their own (bad) choice, or to deliberately hurt people. Not a majority (I hope) - but the "women would NEVER lie about such a thing" myth is just as persistant.

I've never heard that particular myth. I've never encountered a non-troll who made that claim, and I've hung out with (self-identified) radical lesbian separatists. So really, I think the only myth is that anybody claims "women would NEVER lie."

I've also never met a woman who identified her experience as "rape" if she merely didn't feel like having sex but declined to say something. Rather, I've met women who identified their experience as rape even though they didn't say "no" because 1) they feared they would be hurt or killed, 2) they were in complete shock at what was happening, 3) the rapist had done it before and they knew objecting would just make it worse, 4) their children were in danger, 5) etc etc and so forth.

And I've met even more men who explain how it wasn't rape because she didn't really MEAN the "no," or because she stopped saying "no," or because she didn't say "no" very loud, or because she only said "let's just do oral," or because she had said she would before and then changed her mind, or because she said "stop, that's hurting me" after they started, or whatever the hell else. And I think the real problem is that people try to pretend those situations aren't black and white, when they really are. It's not actually difficult to tell if something is or isn't rape...as long as one stops assuming that women exist in a state of default consent. Stop assuming that it's okay unless she's said no; instead, assume it is NOT okay until/unless she is saying "YES." If, at any time, you think that the "yes" might have stopped, then YOU stop. It's just that black-and-white.

[Duetopia]

they are two very different crimes.

Well in both cases, someone gets fucked against their will.

Uh...no. One's an actual assault. Come on.

Unless the woman is actually seriously injured during the assault, you cannot claim that rape is so incredibly worse than what happens to someone who is falsely accused of rape. Men have lost their jobs, their livelihoods, their families, their standing in the community because of false allegations. You honestly think that rape is so much worse than that?

Sometimes. Rape is actually the only crime that in certain cases may be worse than murder. The point is that the crime does not stop once the sexual act is over. Its memory causes life-long trauma. And women are pre-programmed to experience that trauma more severely than almost anything else that happens to their body.

Think of it this way. When you hear a child scream, it's worse than just some loud noise. Why? Because your brain is wired to have that "extra" primal reaction to this. In much the same way, a woman's brain is programmed to have an extra primal reaction to this violent act. So they experience it as if it were a beating that keeps coming up again and again and its experience is more intense than any beating could be.

[Duetopia]

The lack of practical limitations to the definition of 'rape' is a problem as well. Just because you spent the night binge drinking and fucking some dude you later wake up to see is fugly as all fuck, it doesn't mean you need to erase your shame by claiming it was rape.

The idea that adult women who get blasted cannot give consent to sex despite their intention to get drunk and fuck(ie, every drunk-out-of-her-mind woman at the clubs) is taking things waaay too far. Yes dear, you may regret your actions in the morning, but don't pretend you didn't act at all.

Okay. You're not worth talking to.

Anyone who makes claims that every drunk woman can't have really been raped, is not worth talking to.




Or pissing on.

He didn't make anything even close to that claim. He made an entirely different claim. His claim was that women can now claim rape after consenting under diminished capacity (ie drunk). And that's probably not right. If a woman consented, her level of incapacitation should not be an issue. Anti-rape legislation exists to prevent violent crime (of rape) -- not to promote good judgment. Government has no business regulating good judgment during sex. You start with no-sex-while-drunk laws and you end up with no-sex-other-than-missionary laws.

[Zeon Principality]

His claim was that women can now claim rape after consenting under diminished capacity (ie drunk). And that's probably not right. If a woman consented, her level of incapacitation should not be an issue. Anti-rape legislation exists to prevent violent crime (of rape) -- not to promote good judgment.

Especially since there's a large chance that the person (BE IT MAN OR WOMAN) the woman had sex with was ALSO drunk, so neither of them could be accused of being able to use good judgement. I guess you could claim it rape if the other person was 100% sober at the time, taking conscious advantage of a drunk (who still consented to the act). Although even then you have to take in consideration that the drunkard willingly got drunk, and now is consenting to having sexual intercourse with someone. I'm a firm believer in that being intoxicated by any drug if you did it on your own accord is NO EXCUSE for idiotic behavior. You're STILL 100% responsible for your own damn actions, since getting intoxicated was YOUR OWN CHOICE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Otherwise people could murder, drive and do whatever the hell they want while drunk with no consequence.

Now, if someone FORCED you to drink excessively, that's different, or if someone slipped drugs in your drink, that also is different. But if someone willingly drunk until completely smashed and went off to have sex with a complete stranger (whilst consenting), now that's his or her own damn fault. No matter if you were a man or a woman. You get no sympathy from me if you got "omg raepd" while "LETS HAVE SEX"ing with someone whilst both were utterly and completely drunk.