I have a buddy of mine he’s been up producing films for years since the 70s so he had a connections at least acquaintances of people at West. It’s kind of the worst kept Secret/terrible trade practice br it man or woman you’re lucky if you don’t have to sleep with somebody to get somewhere. He Used to say I wonder who Keanu Reeves slept with. Honestly Wonder especially when the men how many have been sexually molested or assault. Especially the heterosexual man because they are all most likely going to keep quiet about it just that hold on to any type of face. And I can tell you from personal experience just want to buried from your memory.
I not really sensitive, more blunt or logical. No proof in claims makes them hard to believe. I prefer proof/ evidence to words. A few years ago at a party I was falsely accused of rape by the friend of the victim… Despite never meeting her, the victim or being up stairs where it happened. I watch as people believed her like fools and kept me from leaving. Until the cops came and later figure out it was her brother who did it and she was trying to pin it on me. I learned a lesson that night and now always take things with a grain of salt.
I take everything with a grain of salt too, and try to be logical whenever possible.
But it’s hard for someone to be logical if they’re still reeling from a traumatic experience.
Again, you’re right - they should speak up immediately. But you can’t blame them for not speaking up immediately.
Which I think goes halfway to proving my point. She was willing to accuse someone she didn’t know (and who therefore, had no power over her) over accusing someone she did know (who did). That sort of relative power relationship is important context to consider when it comes to an accusation, and the reason why “believe women” is treated as a general maxim is because women tend to have more institutional disadvantages when it comes to reporting sexual misconduct, on the part of someone they know, due to societal hangups about sex and consent.
I can find examples of anything unlikely. This does not make it normal.
Please stop and think about what you just said there.
That’s generally why anecdotal evidence is considered a less-than-satisfactory proof when regarding wider societal trends.
Which isn’t so say that anecdotal evidence is always insufficient against individuals, I mean, I know those false accusers in those three cited articles clearly aren’t trustworthy, but that’s only really a drop in the bucket.
I would be very surprised if in a search for “false accusations of rape” or “men falsely accused of rape” or “false rape convictions” you didn’t find any examples. Such things exist, this is not something I am disputing.
But that doesn’t prove that women don’t “tend to have institutional disadvantages when it comes to reporting sexual misconduct”, nor does it prove that men who are charged are usually convicted and/or usually stigmatized for the rest of their lives even when it doesn’t reach trial.
It would be like responding to me saying “most Union generals didn’t have red hair” by posting a picture of Sherman, or “most American steam locomotives in service after 1900 burned coal or oil.” with a picture of a wood burning locomotive.
It’s not evidence that these are actually commonplace events and that the statement being challenged is wrong.
Those are really innocuous analogies compared to what I was going to use.
They were the easiest examples of “this is hideously unlikely, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist” I could find pictures of (I might even have have some saved instead of having to actually google search it of the second). And they don’t involve me puking in disgust and/or fear at how horrific humans can be to each other.
What did you have in mind for your analogies?
“Just because Oskar Schindler and John Rabe existed doesn’t mean the Nazis were good.”
That might be rather more apropos. And both seem like they wouldn’t be remembered as much if this wasn’t worth noting as an exception to the rule.
If you ever been in a heavily dominated job with men. The common assumption is she lying until proven otherwise. But simultaneously it’s one of men biggest fears. Always at the first allegation if there’s several women claiming then fade real fast.
That’s a given. When multiple allegations come out at once, then that removes a lot of doubt from the equation.
Edit: Disregard this link, upon a closer look I’m now doubting its credibility.
I think a lot of the grey area around what rates of false accusations actually are is based on what qualifies as a false accusation. Does it count when the accuser retracts the claim for various reasons (IIRC, Trump’s accuser is still in hiding in fear of her life right now)? Or does it only qualify when the accuser admits to making it up? Or does it count when a judge, in his infinite wisdom (let’s not kid ourselves, it’s usually a “he” here) decides that because of what the accuser said, or wore, or drank, it wasn’t a “real sexual assault”?
An interesting flipside to the charge of “innocent until proven guilty” in regards to sexual assault is that the accusers are likewise often accused of making up their assault (once again, exponentially more likely in the instance that a powerful person is the alleged assaulter). In such cases, there is no real way to apply “innocent until proven guilty” because either one of the people involved is guilty of fabricating a sexual assault (which is still an absolutely abhorrent thing to do) or other is guilty of being a rapist.
But the accused rapist is the one who is actually on trial. Most of the time, if the “victim” turns out to be lying they are left off the hook, even in situations where the accused has already served jail time. I heard that the UK is taking a more aggressive stance against false accusations, but I have yet to hear about such things happening elsewhere.
Anyways, I do agree that it is a serious and complex issue. I just don’t like statements like “women tend to have more institutional disavantages when it comes to reporting sexual misconduct” when so many men convicted solely on a woman’s word, and in the court system as a whole (not just relating to rape) women tend to receive shorter sentences.
And really, we should have more than just one person’s word when convicting someone - as you said, if there are multiple allegations from different victims/witnesses. But if it’s simply a he-said/she-said issue, I would say the case should be ruled inconclusive and both parties should be left off the hook. And if the alleged rapist ends up in a court room room again, then the judge should take into account the fact that he has already been accused of rape before (but not necessarily convict him solely on that if there is no other evidence.)
When officially declaring something a false accusation, the judge should look for evidence that the accuser was lying. For example, did they conspire with anyone? Can the accused prove that he was nowhere near where the rape allegedly occurred? I keep saying ‘he’ because yes, the majority of rapists do happen to be men.
They really shouldn’t be. I don’t think there’s too much disagreement on that account.
Sentencing isn’t the only dimension to this issue, and neither is gender. Public opinion, and the opinions of the representatives of legal institutions themselves offer their own biases, and I’d imagine that for every false accusation, there’s at least one case which is thrown out because the assault somehow “didn’t count” in the eyes of the jury. That doesn’t even start to touch on societal perceptions which mean that most women who are assaulted (and the vast majority of men who are assaulted for that matter) don’t report it until years later, if at all.
White, middle-class women, anyhow. I’d imagine that if you broke down the false accusations by race (at least in the US), the vast majority would be against black and brown men, especially in the cases where a long jail sentence was involved. Meanwhile, if you happen to win the genetic lottery, you can end up with just a few months, like Brock Turner did.
If it can be proven that the accuser positively fabricated their accusation in a court of law, then you’re probably looking at the lower end of study results, about 1.5-3%, probably.
Apparently, there’s actually specific sorts of accusations which tend to be falsified more often than others. Although it doesn’t necessarily mean that a particular instance which trips all the red flags was faked, it does mean that most allegations (which tend to avoid these red flags) most likely aren’t.
I am always deeply disturbed by attempts at court-packing, yet even here they happen on occasions, though far less blatantly then what is happening in the US now. As for his legal qualification when something is as tangled up in politics as this mess seems to be it’s hard to say. On the one hand an Ivy League university has apparently deemed this man fit to graduate as a jurist and I know members even on our own bar association who shouldn’t be deemed fit to practice law in an ideal world, imho.
On the other hand his lack of actual trial experience and the mere fact that he is willing to lend himself to a blatant court-packing scheme that while it may not be illegal almost certainly contravenes what we are (and I assume most American jurists too) are taught in our (legal) ethics courses are big black marks against him if you’re asking me, which you are and I certainly don’t respect such individuals as jurists.
Still this is an internal American matter and my knowledge of both the actors and the laws are limited and in the first case as good as non-existent.
Lowest common, denominator dear @PotionsMaster, lowest common denominator in Trump’s case he may be taking it a bit too literally.
In any case his incendiary elementary school speak certainly got his message across effectively enough during the elections to actually get him elected, so in his case it is clearly working for him to at least keep a floor of support at this point.
If you can then well I don’t know what to say as a simply sorry likely won’t ever be enough.
I know from my mandatory psych courses that most actual rapists or (serial) molesters are in it more for the power and control then for any sort of actual, meaningful sexual gratification but male on male abuse gives the whole gay community a bad reputation too.
Which is sometimes legally problematic in that women and also some children tend to ironically have far too easy legal pathways to accuse people they don’t or only vaguely know, while social restraints and cultural perceptions still hold those same groups back from reporting the real cases.
In addition false accusations are all-around bad business, they erode confidence in the legal system, ruin the lives of the falsely accused and clog up valuable court and police time that makes it more likely that real and important cases are slipping through the cracks in the system.
It can and does happen here, but only if the court of public opinion and the media seem to be behind it, otherwise the prosecution just leaves it be, which isn’t a very satisfactory state of affairs.
Trouble is many of the cases have already passed the statute of limitation when it comes to light, for the others it would require the prosecution to effectively admit to wrongful prosecution, which can cost the state quite a bit of money. Therefore they avoid it, unless there is public and media pressure to compel otherwise.