Rolling Stone "our trust was misplaced." UVA assault article retracted?

[SKL]

Besides lazy, I would also say that occasionally media can be self-serving, purposely misleading and malicious, too. For example, we have friends who've lived in the Middle East for years who've told us about events they witnessed that were wildly slanted in the media, downright falsely reported actually. It's very difficult to know what is really true in journalism, and that is why a reader -- especially one who claims to be a critical thinker -- must be patient and question what is written instead of reacting.

 

Right, and when we say "I don't know enough, I don't want to rush to judgment," folks shouldn't be shamed as "part of the problem" or "ignoring the elephant in the room."  Or in the present context, evidence of a "rape culture."

 

Too often we seem to forget that "innocent until proven guilty" applies to all Americans.  Even those in the privileged demographics.  There's a good reason for that, if anyone cares to remember.

 

Now if the original story had been that a bunch of women falsely accused men of rape, and it turned out that the magazine had not done any due diligence and it was in fact a lie, I'm guessing that story would have played out much differently.

[swimmermom3]

Besides lazy, I would also say that occasionally media can be self-serving, purposely misleading and malicious, too. For example, we have friends who've lived in the Middle East for years who've told us about events they witnessed that were wildly slanted in the media, downright falsely reported actually. It's very difficult to know what is really true in journalism, and that is why a reader -- especially one who claims to be a critical thinker -- must be patient and question what is written instead of reacting.

 

"Yes!" to everything above.  It's so important to teach our kids how to examine what they read, to dissect it, and to look for more information, as well as teaching discernment with regards to sources.  It's also important to teach them the distinction between the story and the issue.

[Word Nerd]

For those of you that are outraged at Rolling Stone's carelessness (and you should be), then I hope you were equally outraged by Fox's Muslim "No Go Zones" and similar stories.

 

Why would you assume otherwise?

[DianeW88]

Unfortunately, young women making up stories to get attention isn't anything new.  A girl that I went to school with alleged for weeks that she was being stalked by a certain guy, and then she went missing.  For several days.  Hundreds of people were searching for her.  Turns out she kidnapped herself.  Yeah.

 

Obviously there are psychological issues at play in these situations.  Sadly, it only hurts women who are real victims of sexual assault and other crimes.

[k10coon]

I accidentally down voted this thread and I don't know how to change it.  Fat fingers on a small screen.  Sorry!

 

[swimmermom3]

Why would you assume otherwise?

 

It's my hope that sloppy, irresponsible reporting irks people no matter what side of an issue they support or who the source is.  My experience is that we tend to see our favorite sources as reliable and those with opposing viewpoints as unreliable. Lately, my youngest has caught me a couple of times accepting as fact something I should be questioning. It really bugs me because I am the one that taught him the cynicism. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

[Reefgazer]

Our justice system doesn't convict people based on the number of claims against them. In fact, each case would be tried separately, with evidence from one inadmissible in another trial. Where you see 30 women making claims and concluding that it is unbelievable that they would be lying, I find it unbelievable that of thirty separate people, not one had the common sense or thought it was vile enough to report it.

 

I have a son and a daughter, and I want my daughter protected from sexual predators. But I also want my son protected from false allegations. I won't be getting behind anyone who can't file a report, has offered no evidence or corroboration, and attempts to try someone in the media 20+ years after the fact.

 

in cosby's case - there are 30 women making claims that they can prove they actually met.

 

in the other's case - there is one person who claimed to be at party that never happened. (at least on the date she claimed) then she claimed maybe it was a different frat. (without giving the name of the "new" frat.)

 

there is a difference.

[swimmermom3]

Our justice system doesn't convict people based on the number of claims against them. In fact, each case would be tried separately, with evidence from one inadmissible in another trial. Where you see 30 women making claims and concluding that it is unbelievable that they would be lying, I find it unbelievable that of thirty separate people, not one had the common sense or thought it was vile enough to report it.

 

I have a son and a daughter, and I want my daughter protected from sexual predators. But I also want my son protected from false allegations. I won't be getting behind anyone who can't file a report, has offered no evidence or corroboration, and attempts to try someone in the media 20+ years after the fact.

 

 

Thirty odd years ago, my folks bought a house and property from someone who had worked in state government, but was leaving town quickly. My parents were always a bit puzzled by the abrupt departure from what had been the wife's dream home. A few years ago, it came out that at the time, the highly placed official that the man worked for was sleeping with a 14 yo. girl. Everybody knew, but kept it quiet for 20+ years. The sellers of the house were really good people and the situation must have been untenable to leave the home and state they loved, but still, nobody said a word.  In this country 30 years ago, a man with a sleazy character and a promising political career was worth far more than a 14 yo girl.

 

What about the victims of Jerry Sandusky? A football program was worth more than some low-life kids.

 

You find it unbelievable that no one had the common sense to report what happened?????  Let's see. A powerful, wealthy man has just raped you. A woman of common sense would of course go immediately to the police station where she would be treated with the utmost respect while she stands naked on a sheet and 30 people comb through her hair - ALL of it, take scrapings from under her finger nails, take her clothes and bag them. When this is done, she can wait anxiously while the rape kit is (not) processed over a couple of months. The powerful, wealthy man will have a very slick attorney and she will have what???

 

Thirty years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago , today, most of the time it is better emotionally to put up and shut up when it comes to rape, domestic violence, and abuse by those in power.

 

I too have sons and a daughter. It is far more likely that my dd will be assaulted than it is that my sons will be falsely accused. Why is the conversation always about protecting the guys?  It's because men, especially white men are far more valuable to society than women or children. People of wealth and power are always more valuable, no matter their actions.

[swimmermom3]

I agree that proof that they met is a good thing toward conviction.

 

I reject the idea that 30 or 50 or 100 women coming forward is proof of anything.  I've read enough in the media, I could come up with a pretty convincing story about the time BC assaulted me. 

 

So if I use the same reasoning, I would come to the conclusion that all of the cases that have "come to light" with regards to abuse by Catholic priests of minors is proof of nothing and that there is no culture of abuse there either??

 

[SKL]

 

I too have sons and a daughter. It is far more likely that my dd will be assaulted than it is that my sons will be falsely accused. Why is the conversation always about protecting the guys?  It's because men, especially white men are far more valuable to society than women or children.

 

Why are you so sure that your dd is more likely to be assaulted than your son to be falsely accused?

 

Do you know about every instance where a man was falsely accused?  They don't all make the news, you know.

 

There is also a culture of falsely suspecting men of being rapists / pedophiles.  That is the real reason behind many of the now-common "safety policies."  Children are being deprived of the opportunity to have healthy interactions with men.  It's disturbing to me as a mother.

 

I don't agree with your "men are far more valuable to society than women or children."  Maybe 100 years ago, but not today.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Why are you so sure that your dd is more likely to be assaulted than your son to be falsely accused?

 

Do you know about every instance where a man was falsely accused? They don't all make the news, you know.

 

There is also a culture of falsely suspecting men of being rapists / pedophiles. That is the real reason behind many of the now-common "safety policies." Children are being deprived of the opportunity to have healthy interactions with men. It's disturbing to me as a mother.

 

I don't agree with your "men are far more valuable to society than women or children." Maybe 100 years ago, but not today.

Anyone even remotely familiar with data on sexual assaults can easily work out that a woman is much more likely to be assaulted than a man is to be falsely accused of sexual assault.

[swimmermom3]

Why are you so sure that your dd is more likely to be assaulted than your son to be falsely accused?

 

Do you know about every instance where a man was falsely accused?  They don't all make the news, you know.

 

There is also a culture of falsely suspecting men of being rapists / pedophiles.  That is the real reason behind many of the now-common "safety policies."  Children are being deprived of the opportunity to have healthy interactions with men.  It's disturbing to me as a mother.

 

I don't agree with your "men are far more valuable to society than women or children."  Maybe 100 years ago, but not today.

 

I am sorry, I don't follow the parts in bold. I am sure that not every case where a man is unjustly accused makes the news just as I am even more sure that a significant number of rapes, domestic assaults, and cases of pedophilia go under/unreported.

 

A culture of falsely suspecting men of being rapists/pedophiles?  Can you please explain this? One could use the Rolling Stone article as an example I suppose, but some of the information here says the guy she named didn't even exist.

 

At roughly the same time, we have the Vanderbilt rape case which is a bit hard to dismiss as there is video of one of them raping the girl. And of course, since she drank she deserved to be pissed on by these innocent models of manhood.  Let's see, then there is the Stanford swimmer who plead "not guilty" after two bicyclists saw him on top of a passed out young woman. I think there was a mention of "penetration with a foreign object" in those charges, but then he is just one of the 50% of college-age young men who believe they are entitled to sex with a woman who is passed out and cannot consent.  Somehow, I don't think they would feel the same way if one of their frat brothers assaulted them while they were passed out.  Do I really need to talk about the Penn State frat boys with their Facebook page of drug deals and nude photos of young women who did not know the photos were being taken of them? Stuebenville anyone? Oh that's right. It was the girl's fault. Those poor, poor boys and the men who were just trying to help them by covering everything up. Too bad about those videos, you know, where one guy in the background says something like, 'Hey man, this is rape."  Nope, no rape culture in this country, only a "culture of falsely suspecting men of being rapists/pedophiles."  Please, who did it? The dog?

 

A year ago, I renewed by OLCC serving license so I could serve beer and wine at the sailing club. The course was taught by the head of security for several high-end meat markets downtown. He said that every night, staff had to be extra vigilant about guys plying girls with too much booze and then offering to take them home. Drugging drinks and dealing with the subsequent police reports was a daily occurrence for him. Apparently, sometimes guys don't realize that the girl who can't stand was only served one drink and staff suspects a problem.

 

On one hand, I get what you are saying in that even 20 years ago, I had to tell my husband to stop making silly faces at kids in the grocery store because he was freaking the moms out. On the other hand, sticking our heads in the sand and saying it's all a case of poor boys just being manly and slutty girls who are drunk makes the job so much easier for actual rapists.

 

If women are as valuable as men, why don't they get paid the same to do the same job as men?

 

 

[SKL]

I am sorry, I don't follow the parts in bold. I am sure that not every case where a man is unjustly accused makes the news just as I am even more sure that a significant number of rapes, domestic assaults, and cases of pedophilia go under/unreported.

 

A culture of falsely suspecting men of being rapists/pedophiles?  Can you please explain this? One could use the Rolling Stone article as an example I suppose, but some of the information here says the guy she named didn't even exist.

 

At roughly the same time, we have the Vanderbilt rape case which is a bit hard to dismiss as there is video of one of them raping the girl. And of course, since she drank she deserved to be pissed on by these innocent models of manhood.  Let's see, then there is the Stanford swimmer who plead "not guilty" after two bicyclists saw him on top of a passed out young woman. I think there was a mention of "penetration with a foreign object" in those charges, but then he is just one of the 50% of college-age young men who believe they are entitled to sex with a woman who is passed out and cannot consent.  Somehow, I don't think they would feel the same way if one of their frat brothers assaulted them while they were passed out.  Do I really need to talk about the Penn State frat boys with their Facebook page of drug deals and nude photos of young women who did not know the photos were being taken of them? Stuebenville anyone? Oh that's right. It was the girl's fault. Those poor, poor boys and the men who were just trying to help them by covering everything up. Too bad about those videos, you know, where one guy in the background says something like, 'Hey man, this is rape."  Nope, no rape culture in this country, only a "culture of falsely suspecting men of being rapists/pedophiles."  Please, who did it? The dog?

 

A year ago, I renewed by OLCC serving license so I could serve beer and wine at the sailing club. The course was taught by the head of security for several high-end meat markets downtown. He said that every night, staff had to be extra vigilant about guys plying girls with too much booze and then offering to take them home. Drugging drinks and dealing with the subsequent police reports was a daily occurrence for him. Apparently, sometimes guys don't realize that the girl who can't stand was only served one drink and staff suspects a problem.

 

On one hand, I get what you are saying in that even 20 years ago, I had to tell my husband to stop making silly faces at kids in the grocery store because he was freaking the moms out. On the other hand, sticking our heads in the sand and saying it's all a case of poor boys just being manly and slutty girls who are drunk makes the job so much easier for actual rapists.

 

If women are as valuable as men, why don't they get paid the same to do the same job as men?

 

Well, I'm not sure how to interpret your response.  I get the impression you are putting words in my mouth that are not remotely like what I said.  Are you saying that because I assert that false accusations happen (most of which are not reported / publicized), that means I deny that rape also happens?  That means that a videotaped rape didn't actually happen in my opinion?  It is very difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who is going to twist my words to that extent.

 

My point is that I don't think moms of boys should underestimate the possibility that their son could be falsely accused of rape.  I have seen it up close and personal, and it wasn't pretty.  The only reason anyone stood up for the guy was because some of them knew he was a closet homosexual.

 

As for your final question, I don't agree with the suggestion that salary is the measure of a person's worth in society.  And I think it's a bad idea to make this discussion "about money."  We all know that rape victims and rapists are found in all demographics.  It seems that the ones we hear the most about are the ones where the [alleged] rapists are privileged, but I assure you there are plenty of rapes/assaults that don't involve a privileged rapist.

[Tsuga]

I didn't follow this case as I do not read Rolling Stone.

 

I think that memories vary and a huge problem with rape is that people are so traumatized they don't go in right away to get physical evidence.

 

But what an incredible shame that RS did not have rock solid research to back up such a touchstone issue piece. There are rapes that occur for which there is extensive physical evidence. Why just rely on one person's report?

 

Thousands of rape kits go untested, the real tragedy, but this story will be hwleld up as evidence that memory is unreliable for years to come.

 

How incredibly sad for all involved.

[swimmermom3]

Well, I'm not sure how to interpret your response.  I get the impression you are putting words in my mouth that are not remotely like what I said.  Are you saying that because I assert that false accusations happen (most of which are not reported / publicized), that means I deny that rape also happens?  That means that a videotaped rape didn't actually happen in my opinion?  It is very difficult to have a rational discussion with someone who is going to twist my words to that extent.

 

My point is that I don't think moms of boys should underestimate the possibility that their son could be falsely accused of rape.  I have seen it up close and personal, and it wasn't pretty.  The only reason anyone stood up for the guy was because some of them knew he was a closet homosexual.

 

As for your final question, I don't agree with the suggestion that salary is the measure of a person's worth in society.  And I think it's a bad idea to make this discussion "about money."  We all know that rape victims and rapists are found in all demographics.  It seems that the ones we hear the most about are the ones where the [alleged] rapists are privileged, but I assure you there are plenty of rapes/assaults that don't involve a privileged rapist.

 

No, I don't mean to put words in your mouth and I admit that I get hot under the collar when anyone brings up false accusations against men. I know they happen and that the fallout is devastating, but you asked me how I could be so sure my dd was more likely to be assaulted than my boys were to be falsely accused. I don't know it for an absolute fact, but statistics are pretty much in favor of that happening. What bothers me is that sometimes the voices protesting false accusations against the men seem to be so much louder than the voices protesting against rape. We say a false accusation ruins the guy's life, but does the rape victim have it so much better? How often do they quit school and give up on their dreams to avoid their assailant? How often do these young women sink into depression and/or drug and alcohol abuse? How many find it difficult to impossible to have healthy sexual relations? How many suffer lasting physical effects like STDs or damage that leaves them unable to have children? My point in bringing up all of the cases of proven assault that made the media about the same time as the false allegation is to point out the disparity in numbers.

 

The recent trend to give more credence to the victim than to the alleged perpetrator is just that, a very recent trend. It has changed in one generation. Getting away with rape because the perpetrator is seen as more valuable or more powerful than the victim is a systemic injustice that has been happening for centuries and centuries.

 

You may not measure a person's worth by their salary, but society does. You said that at one time women and children weren't as valuable as men, but that had changed in the last 100 years. My point about women not getting paid as much as men had nothing to do with rape. If we valued the job women do as much as the job men do, we would pay them the same.  Other than that point, which again has nothing to do with rape, but societal values, I agree, there is no point in making the conversation about money. Well, except that if you are wealthy, you are more likely to get away with rape.

[Reefgazer]

Sorry,  but no to the bold.  We've heard on here repeatedly that sexual assault is devastating, and yet you are saying it is not worth it?!?!?  Speaking out, pressing charges, making perpetrators known for what they are is the *only* hope that these monsters will be brought to justice and exposed for whom they are, however slim that chance.   

 

You don't convict someone on a numbers game ("It's more likely my daughter will be assaulted than my sons..."); you convict them on evidence.  This is not about protecting men; it's about protecting the integrity of "innocent until proven guilty".  I agree that there are issues within the justice system as far as adequate representation goes, but the answer to that is to fix the representation, not discard a core tenant of the justice system. 

 

 

 

Thirty odd years ago, my folks bought a house and property from someone who had worked in state government, but was leaving town quickly. My parents were always a bit puzzled by the abrupt departure from what had been the wife's dream home. A few years ago, it came out that at the time, the highly placed official that the man worked for was sleeping with a 14 yo. girl. Everybody knew, but kept it quiet for 20+ years. The sellers of the house were really good people and the situation must have been untenable to leave the home and state they loved, but still, nobody said a word.  In this country 30 years ago, a man with a sleazy character and a promising political career was worth far more than a 14 yo girl.

 

 

What about the victims of Jerry Sandusky? A football program was worth more than some low-life kids.

 

You find it unbelievable that no one had the common sense to report what happened?????  Let's see. A powerful, wealthy man has just raped you. A woman of common sense would of course go immediately to the police station where she would be treated with the utmost respect while she stands naked on a sheet and 30 people comb through her hair - ALL of it, take scrapings from under her finger nails, take her clothes and bag them. When this is done, she can wait anxiously while the rape kit is (not) processed over a couple of months. The powerful, wealthy man will have a very slick attorney and she will have what???

 

Thirty years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago , today, most of the time it is better emotionally to put up and shut up when it comes to rape, domestic violence, and abuse by those in power.

 

I too have sons and a daughter. It is far more likely that my dd will be assaulted than it is that my sons will be falsely accused. Why is the conversation always about protecting the guys?  It's because men, especially white men are far more valuable to society than women or children. People of wealth and power are always more valuable, no matter their actions.

 

[Reefgazer]

Actually, the bolded is not true for chemistry (and many other) positions in the US.  If you look here...

 

http://www.payscale.com/career-news/2009/11/women-earn-less-than-men-a-result-of-pregnancy-leave

 

...you will see that once you take into account outside factors that influence pay, there is only a 4% differential in pay for women making under $100,000.  This is real money, but represents huge progress from the 60s and has been getting smaller as time marches on.  As the article mentions, many of the factors that result in lower pay are difficult to control for in research on the topic, so you really can't say exactly why women's salary might be 4% lower; there are certainly legitimate reasons why this may be so (they take time off for kids, for example, or choose lower-paying branches of chemistry).   

 

Then there are jobs where women make more than men:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/women-paid-more-than-men-jobs_n_3110432.html

 

The fact that these are lower-paying jobs in general speaks to women's choices more than discrimination.

 

I get that this particular topic is a tangent, though, and will back off it so as not to hijack the thread.

 

I am sorry, I don't follow the parts in bold. I am sure that not every case where a man is unjustly accused makes the news just as I am even more sure that a significant number of rapes, domestic assaults, and cases of pedophilia go under/unreported.

 

A culture of falsely suspecting men of being rapists/pedophiles?  Can you please explain this? One could use the Rolling Stone article as an example I suppose, but some of the information here says the guy she named didn't even exist.

 

At roughly the same time, we have the Vanderbilt rape case which is a bit hard to dismiss as there is video of one of them raping the girl. And of course, since she drank she deserved to be pissed on by these innocent models of manhood.  Let's see, then there is the Stanford swimmer who plead "not guilty" after two bicyclists saw him on top of a passed out young woman. I think there was a mention of "penetration with a foreign object" in those charges, but then he is just one of the 50% of college-age young men who believe they are entitled to sex with a woman who is passed out and cannot consent.  Somehow, I don't think they would feel the same way if one of their frat brothers assaulted them while they were passed out.  Do I really need to talk about the Penn State frat boys with their Facebook page of drug deals and nude photos of young women who did not know the photos were being taken of them? Stuebenville anyone? Oh that's right. It was the girl's fault. Those poor, poor boys and the men who were just trying to help them by covering everything up. Too bad about those videos, you know, where one guy in the background says something like, 'Hey man, this is rape."  Nope, no rape culture in this country, only a "culture of falsely suspecting men of being rapists/pedophiles."  Please, who did it? The dog?

 

A year ago, I renewed by OLCC serving license so I could serve beer and wine at the sailing club. The course was taught by the head of security for several high-end meat markets downtown. He said that every night, staff had to be extra vigilant about guys plying girls with too much booze and then offering to take them home. Drugging drinks and dealing with the subsequent police reports was a daily occurrence for him. Apparently, sometimes guys don't realize that the girl who can't stand was only served one drink and staff suspects a problem.

 

On one hand, I get what you are saying in that even 20 years ago, I had to tell my husband to stop making silly faces at kids in the grocery store because he was freaking the moms out. On the other hand, sticking our heads in the sand and saying it's all a case of poor boys just being manly and slutty girls who are drunk makes the job so much easier for actual rapists.

 

If women are as valuable as men, why don't they get paid the same to do the same job as men?

 

[SKL]

No, I don't mean to put words in your mouth and I admit that I get hot under the collar when anyone brings up false accusations against men. I know they happen and that the fallout is devastating, but you asked me how I could be so sure my dd was more likely to be assaulted than my boys were to be falsely accused. I don't know it for an absolute fact, but statistics are pretty much in favor of that happening. What bothers me is that sometimes the voices protesting false accusations against the men seem to be so much louder than the voices protesting against rape. We say a false accusation ruins the guy's life, but does the rape victim have it so much better? How often do they quit school and give up on their dreams to avoid their assailant? How often do these young women sink into depression and/or drug and alcohol abuse? How many find it difficult to impossible to have healthy sexual relations? How many suffer lasting physical effects like STDs or damage that leaves them unable to have children? My point in bringing up all of the cases of proven assault that made the media about the same time as the false allegation is to point out the disparity in numbers.

 

The recent trend to give more credence to the victim than to the alleged perpetrator is just that, a very recent trend. It has changed in one generation. Getting away with rape because the perpetrator is seen as more valuable or more powerful than the victim is a systemic injustice that has been happening for centuries and centuries.

 

You may not measure a person's worth by their salary, but society does. You said that at one time women and children weren't as valuable as men, but that had changed in the last 100 years. My point about women not getting paid as much as men had nothing to do with rape. If we valued the job women do as much as the job men do, we would pay them the same.  Other than that point, which again has nothing to do with rape, but societal values, I agree, there is no point in making the conversation about money. Well, except that if you are wealthy, you are more likely to get away with rape.

 

I am aware that history - and the present in some countries - was/is as you described (in the bold).  But we don't live in the past (or over there).  We live in the here and now.  Talking about past injustices as if they were happening right now is a distraction and only harms your credibility.

 

Nobody wants to hear that their friend / relative has been accused of rape, but today we have the ability to examine all kinds of forensic evidence that either didn't exist or couldn't be analyzed in the past.  We also have rules about how cases proceed which do a much better job of protecting the victim.  It's time to stop acting as if what was "happening for centuries and centuries" is how things are today.  (Besides, it's not as if nobody cared if women were raped in the past.  People were more likely to seek justice / protection on their own vs. trust the justice system.)

 

As for the income / value thing - that really is a whole separate topic.  It deserves to be discussed, but I don't want to get into it in this thread because I don't think it belongs here.

 

I do hope you are right about your sons not ever being accused, but if they do, at the rate things are going (with your apparent support), they might be effectively lynched before any real evidence is heard, and there might not be much sympathy for them once the truth comes out.  I recently read about what became of the Duke Lacrosse team members who were falsely accused.  Of course this is just one prominent example.  It is not OK.  Your son should not be asked to "take one for the team."  (And of course there are people who sit in jail for decades for being falsely accused and convicted of rape.  Could this happen to your son?)

 

Believe it or not, it is possible to be against both rape and false accusations at the same time.

[Lanny]

One of my youngest cousins was kidnapped from the parking lot of a Communicty College in CA and then raped, by a Black man. That he did not also kill her is a miracle, because the penalties, had he been caught, are the same.

 

Sexual asault against women is a common and horrible thing. Rolling Stone has done a horrible thing to women, by publishing this story and representing it as non fiction. It was a hoax story and it was fiction.

 

The “apologizes†I've read from Rolling Stone staff don't seem to indicate they will make any changes in their Editorial process. The credibility of what is published in Rolliung Stone will be subject to scrutiny, for many years, because of this hoax story.

 

[Joules]

What disturbs me is that when this article came out, many people didn't question the account. Even here on these boards.

 

]

Sadly some of that may be people's personal experiences with fraternity parties. Though the details were way "more" than most people have experienced, enough people have been victimized at these houses and parties that the story doesn't seem completely out of the realm of possibility.

[MBM]

Sadly some of that may be people's personal experiences with fraternity parties. Though the details were way "more" than most people have experienced, enough people have been victimized at these houses and parties that the story doesn't seem completely out of the realm of possibility.

 

I'm not saying the article was out of the realm of possibility at all. I understand and can sympathize with what you're saying -- I am not a big fan of Greek life personally -- but I still believe that we need to be cautious when reading journalism and not rush to judge those being accused until the accusations are checked.

[SKL]

How come I have yet to hear about the boycott?

[Tsuga]

Lanny I am so incredibly sorry to hear about your cousin.

[Audrey]

I'm not going to speak to the veracity of the woman's story as she told it, but I do want to speak to the lack of journalism present in the whole system that allowed the publication of the story.

 

It is not re-traumatizing a victim to ask them for their story, record it and then take the time to find corroborating stories or evidence to support the veracity of the story.  The victim does not need to be, nor should s/he be present or involved in that part of it.  The onus was on the journalist to get corroboration of the story.  She didn't even need to corroborate every detail.  Finding a significant amount of info would have been enough -- major details, times, places, correct names, things like that.  The journalist admits that she never did nor attempted to do any of that.  So point one of blame goes to her. 

 

But, the buck does not stop with the journalist.  Her editor did not ask for corroboration of the story she wrote.  It is possible, as it so often happens in media, that the editor was under pressure to get a high profile piece published -- either for outward factors pressing on them or time deadlines or even just because the sensationalism was too blinding to let go.  So point two -- and I suggest, the biggest point -- of blame goes to the editor.  That is the person who, above all, should have known better and had better judgment protocols in place. 

 

The story is a shame no matter how you look at it.  If it is true, it is a horrific statement on the human capacity for violence.  If it is not true, it is a gross statement on the fading (or vanished?) integrity of journalism.

[swimmermom3]

Sorry,  but no to the bold.  We've heard on here repeatedly that sexual assault is devastating, and yet you are saying it is not worth it?!?!?  Speaking out, pressing charges, making perpetrators known for what they are is the *only* hope that these monsters will be brought to justice and exposed for whom they are, however slim that chance.   

 

You don't convict someone on a numbers game ("It's more likely my daughter will be assaulted than my sons..."); you convict them on evidence.  This is not about protecting men; it's about protecting the integrity of "innocent until proven guilty".  I agree that there are issues within the justice system as far as adequate representation goes, but the answer to that is to fix the representation, not discard a core tenant of the justice system. 

 

Karen, I don't disagree with anything you've written here. I want to believe that speaking out, pressing charges making perpetrators known for what they are will make a difference. I used to believe that, but sadly, I just don't anymore and that's primarily because of the "issues within the justice system" that you refer to.

 

I think even with good science, a lot of cases of real rape are difficult to prove, especially on college campuses where alcohol and potentially date rape drugs are used. It really becomes as "he said, she said" situation. The use of DNA often means nothing because all he has to say is that it was consensual, rough sex.  In fact, that's what happened in the Vanderbilt case. We'd like to think that the victim would recognize the assault and immediately pursue legal channels, but again, that seldom happens for many reasons. In the Vanderbilt case, the lead assailant was the victim's boyfriend. That girl would never have known that she had been raped if university officials hadn't gone through surveillance tape looking for evidence of another problem. The footage of the guys hauling an unconscious girl down the hallway and into a room,caught their attention. Never mind that the guys also videoed the "event." Few rape victims get that "lucky" in having that much evidence.

 

The backlash you are seeing on campuses has a lot to do with long time injustices going overlooked. It's well-documented that administrations have discouraged young women from filing charges even when there is probable cause to believe their stories, often because of the very thing you and SKL are concerned about, they don't want to damage a young man. The system has long worked in favor of the male. We accept rape as an outcome because we are afraid of "making a mistake." There is something very twisted in that thinking.

 

That said, I am not in favor of the "all men are guilty until proven innocent approach," anymore than I am in favor of the "all young woman are liars and out to ruin the guys" approach. On university campuses, we need to probably remove the college from the equation and involve the police immediately. This may have effects that we don't like such as reduced reporting and the alleged assailants being treated with less leniency than they currently are in the system.

 

I also think that if you believe strongly in the "innocent until proven guilty" tenet, then you must be willing to have it work both ways.  Our justice system is an amazing one ideologically in many respects, it can be lacking in it's implementation.

 

[Corraleno]

 

 

Why are you so sure that your dd is more likely to be assaulted than your son to be falsely accused?

 

Do you know about every instance where a man was falsely accused?  They don't all make the news, you know.

 

Only a small percentage of rapes are ever even reported, let alone "make the news." Unless you believe that 20-25% of all men in college have been falsely accused of rape, then the statistics make it quite clear that being the victim of an attempted or completed sexual assault is far more common than being falsely accused of rape. In fact, many of the men who actually committed rape were never accused of it, because the women did not press charges, for all of the reasons that swimmermom3 listed.

 

 

 

Fisher, B.S., Cullen, F.T., & Turner, M.G. (2000). The Sexual Victimization of College Women. National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Findings from this report include:

•  
• It is estimated that the percentage of completed or attempted rape victimization among women in higher educational institutions may be between 20% and 25% over the course of a college career.
•  
• Among college women, 9 in 10 victims of rape and sexual assault knew their offender.
•  
• Almost 12.8% of completed rapes, 35% of attempted rapes, and 22.9% of threatened rapes happened during a date.
•  
• 2.8% experienced either a completed rape (1.7%) or an attempted rape (1.1%) during the six-month period in which the study was conducted.  Of victims, 22.8% were victims of multiple rapes. If this data is calculated for a calendar year period, nearly 5% of college women are victimized during any given calendar year.
•  
• It is estimated that for every 1,000 women attending a college or university, there are 35 incidents of rape each academic year.
•  
• Off-campus sexual victimization is much more common among college women than on-campus victimization.  Of victims of completed rape 33.7% were victimized on campus and 66.3% off campus.
•  
• Less than 5% of completed or attempted rapes against college women were reported to law enforcement.  However, in 2/3rds of the incidents the victim did tell another person, usually a friend, not family or school officials.
•  

 

Krebs, C.P., Lindquist, C.H., Warner, T.D., Fisher, B.S., & Martin, S.L. (2007). The Campus Sexual Assault (CSA) Study. National Institute of Justice.

 

 Findings from this report include:

•  
• Many women (88%) have never consumed a drink left unattended or consumed a drink given to them by a stranger (76%).
•  
• One-quarter of the sample (25%) reported consuming alcohol or drugs before sex at least once a month, and slightly fewer (23%) were drunk or high during sex at least once a month.
•  
• Eighteen percent experienced an attempted (13%) and/or completed (13%) sexual assault since entering college.
•  
• Among the total sample, 5% experienced a completed physically forced sexual assault, but a much higher percentage (11%) experienced a completed incapacitated sexual assault.
•  
• Sexual assaults were most likely to occur in September, October and November, on Friday or Saturday nights, and between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m.
•  
• Most victims of physically forced or incapacitated sexual assault were assaulted by someone they knew (79% and 88%).
•  
• Freshmen and sophomores are at greater risk for victimization than juniors and seniors.

   

[swimmermom3]

I'm not going to speak to the veracity of the woman's story as she told it, but I do want to speak to the lack of journalism present in the whole system that allowed the publication of the story.

 

It is not re-traumatizing a victim to ask them for their story, record it and then take the time to find corroborating stories or evidence to support the veracity of the story.  The victim does not need to be, nor should s/he be present or involved in that part of it.  The onus was on the journalist to get corroboration of the story.  She didn't even need to corroborate every detail.  Finding a significant amount of info would have been enough -- major details, times, places, correct names, things like that.  The journalist admits that she never did nor attempted to do any of that.  So point one of blame goes to her. 

 

But, the buck does not stop with the journalist.  Her editor did not ask for corroboration of the story she wrote.  It is possible, as it so often happens in media, that the editor was under pressure to get a high profile piece published -- either for outward factors pressing on them or time deadlines or even just because the sensationalism was too blinding to let go.  So point two -- and I suggest, the biggest point -- of blame goes to the editor.  That is the person who, above all, should have known better and had better judgment protocols in place. 

 

The story is a shame no matter how you look at it.  If it is true, it is a horrific statement on the human capacity for violence.  If it is not true, it is a gross statement on the fading (or vanished?) integrity of journalism.

 

Bloomberg had a decent article on just how badly Rolling Stone failed.  It is a gross statement on the integrity of journalism. Jon Stewart once called the New York Times and other modern mainstream media (FOX included) "lazy," and I think he got it right. It's not like Rolling Stone hasn't made mistakes before, but most of the time, they practice some caution and intelligent fact checking, which actually makes me even more pissed off at them. Although, I am not really feeling the need to boycott them. They'll be too busy with lawsuits to notice a boycott - and they should be.

 

No one needs a made up case to get what can go terribly wrong on a college campus. The Vanderbilt case is horrific and real.

[gardenmom5]

 

Bloomberg had a decent article on just how badly Rolling Stone failed.  It is a gross statement on the integrity of journalism. Jon Stewart once called the New York Times and other modern mainstream media (FOX included) "lazy," and I think he got it right. It's not like Rolling Stone hasn't made mistakes before, but most of the time, they practice some caution and intelligent fact checking, which actually makes me even more pissed off at them. Although, I am not really feeling the need to boycott them. They'll be too busy with lawsuits to notice a boycott - and they should be.

 

No one needs a made up case to get what can go terribly wrong on a college campus. The Vanderbilt case is horrific and real.

 

another site had the focus on erdley specifically as well as RS.  it's not her first rodeo of journalistic malpractice.  a previous story of hers was dissected - the pattern was the same. misrepresenting facts (and outright lies).  not verifying claims, etc.  the documents and witness statements don't back up that story either.  she should have been fired - that she wasn't indicates RS editors can't be trusted to engage in journalistic integrity.  their whole organization will suffer because they've undermined their own credibility.

[Bluegoat]

That 20% statistic for rape or attempted rape seems a bit misleading to me.  The study that produced it was looking at sexual assault, which is a pretty wide spectrum, it asked about any unwanted sexual contact.  Now, even if we think all unwanted sexual contact is actually malicious - and I think that might be a difficult position to maintain - being groped at a party is not the same as being dragged upstairs and raped.

 

 

I don't think it is particularly the case that there is suddenly and inexplicably all kinds of worry about people being falsly victimized.  I think rather that some of the changes to the treatment of rape that are being pushed by a particular group of advocates, and the changes themselves, are causing legitimate worry about the justice of what is happening.  Probably the most obvious examples are the same ones that are problems in other directions, American university campusus.  These are groups that do not have the expertise and resources to deal with these problems, and it is not at all unheard of for them to decide againts the men involved almost as a matter of course.  there are instances like the matress girl, where her case was really not that great and the university decided against her, and she went about harrasing the fellow she had accused afterward, with accolades from the media and many others. 

 

But I think maybe the most serious worry that people have comes from the attempt to really widen the definition of rape and sexual assault.  And often the same people resist creating different catagories of sexual assault as we have with other crimes.  It's already the case that a lot of this stuff on campus is happening in situations with casual sex among young inexperienced people who don't know each other, who are very drunk so their inhibitions are low and they aren't likely to be really observant.  Casual sex is the reason many people go to these parties, and the right of women to choose to express themselves sexually by having drunken sex is vigorously defended.  On the other hand, the men are being told that if the woman is too drunk - and how drunk that is will vary depending on who is telling them - they are rapists.  If they grope someone, they are guilty of sexual assault and may become part of that 20% statistic.  The fact that women grope men, a lot, as such parties seems to be irelevant.

 

This is the sort of thing society for many years told people was inevitable in this type of situation.  People would be assaulted, people would have sex they maybe really weren't intending to have, people would have poor communicaton, drugs and hormones would obscure meaning, and predators would take advantage of the cover of these other situations.  So social rules said, don't do these things.  These ideas were considered prudish and opressive to women,  This is the sort of thing that Camille Paglia said years ago would result in an open sexual marketplace, and she thought women should embrace (if they liked the sexual marketplace) it as the natural consequence of entering on the same level as men.  She has been reviled as anti-feminist.

 

It's pretty common to hear now of women who consented to sex but decide later it was rape, like the rather bizarre situation with Lena Dunham which was a disaster for the man who was identified.  There have been a few incidents local to me recently which involved weird situations where the men involved were being treated badly - in one the women involved were also ignored as women's advocates seemed to take over the situation.  So I am not at all surprised that young guys are worried that if they even participate in that kind of social event, in what they think are the rules of engagement accepted by all, that they could later be charged with sexual assault.

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That 20% statistic for rape or attempted rape seems a bit misleading to me.  The study that produced it was looking at sexual assault, which is a pretty wide spectrum, it asked about any unwanted sexual contact.  Now, even if we think all unwanted sexual contact is actually malicious - and I think that might be a difficult position to maintain - being groped at a party is not the same as being dragged upstairs and raped.

 

 

I don't think it is particularly the case that there is suddenly and inexplicably all kinds of worry about people being falsly victimized.  I think rather that some of the changes to the treatment of rape that are being pushed by a particular group of advocates, and the changes themselves, are causing legitimate worry about the justice of what is happening.  Probably the most obvious examples are the same ones that are problems in other directions, American university campusus.  These are groups that do not have the expertise and resources to deal with these problems, and it is not at all unheard of for them to decide againts the men involved almost as a matter of course.  there are instances like the matress girl, where her case was really not that great and the university decided against her, and she went about harrasing the fellow she had accused afterward, with accolades from the media and many others. 

 

But I think maybe the most serious worry that people have comes from the attempt to really widen the definition of rape and sexual assault.  And often the same people resist creating different catagories of sexual assault as we have with other crimes.  It's already the case that a lot of this stuff on campus is happening in situations with casual sex among young inexperienced people who don't know each other, who are very drunk so their inhibitions are low and they aren't likely to be really observant.  Casual sex is the reason many people go to these parties, and the right of women to choose to express themselves sexually by having drunken sex is vigorously defended.  On the other hand, the men are being told that if the woman is too drunk - and how drunk that is will vary depending on who is telling them - they are rapists.  If they grope someone, they are guilty of sexual assault and may become part of that 20% statistic.  The fact that women grope men, a lot, as such parties seems to be irelevant.

 

This is the sort of thing society for many years told people was inevitable in this type of situation.  People would be assaulted, people would have sex they maybe really weren't intending to have, people would have poor communicaton, drugs and hormones would obscure meaning, and predators would take advantage of the cover of these other situations.  So social rules said, don't do these things.  These ideas were considered prudish and opressive to women,  This is the sort of thing that Camille Paglia said years ago would result in an open sexual marketplace, and she thought women should embrace (if they liked the sexual marketplace) it as the natural consequence of entering on the same level as men.  She has been reviled as anti-feminist.

 

It's pretty common to hear now of women who consented to sex but decide later it was rape, like the rather bizarre situation with Lena Dunham which was a disaster for the man who was identified.  There have been a few incidents local to me recently which involved weird situations where the men involved were being treated badly - in one the women involved were also ignored as women's advocates seemed to take over the situation.  So I am not at all surprised that young guys are worried that if they even participate in that kind of social event, in what they think are the rules of engagement accepted by all, that they could later be charged with sexual assault.

 

First, you are correct that part of the issue is that universities are trying to adjudicate sexual assault cases which should not be their role as university officials do not have the expertise or resources to do so fairly.  There is also an underlying issue of schools having a vested interest in keeping reports of sexual assault quiet as to not harm their reputation which makes the problem even worse.

 

Frankly the rest of your post is a hot mess and simply perpetuates a lot of common misconceptions.

 

1.)  Being groped is a form of sexual assault and women should not be expected to deal with it just because they are at a party or *gasp* drinking.

 

2.) Women choosing to engage in casual sex does not cause rape.  Men having sex with women who do not want to have sex, or cannot agree to have sex, is what causes rape.  If you don't understand that basic concept, please think about it again and again until you do.

 

3.) There is no body of evidence showing that it is "common" for women to claim rape after consensual sex.

 

4.) If a young man wants to avoid a possible claim of rape, one of the best defenses is to only engage in sexual acts with someone who gives informed, enthusiastic consent. 

 

[Caroline]

First, you are correct that part of the issue is that universities are trying to adjudicate sexual assault cases which should not be their role as university officials do not have the expertise or resources to do so fairly. There is also an underlying issue of schools having a vested interest in keeping reports of sexual assault quiet as to not harm their reputation which makes the problem even worse.

 

Frankly the rest of your post is a hot mess and simply perpetuates a lot of common misconceptions.

 

1.) Being groped is a form of sexual assault and women should not be expected to deal with it just because they are at a party or *gasp* drinking.

 

2.) Women choosing to engage in casual sex does not cause rape. Men having sex with women who do not want to have sex, or cannot agree to have sex, is what causes rape. If you don't understand that basic concept, please think about it again and again until you do.

 

3.) There is no body of evidence showing that it is "common" for women to claim rape after consensual sex.

 

4.) If a young man wants to avoid a possible claim of rape, one of the best defenses is to only engage in sexual acts with someone who gives informed, enthusiastic consent.

 

Exactly.

 

And to add to #4... Maybe just only have sex with someone who gives informed, enthusiastic consent because it's the right thing to do.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Exactly.

 

And to add to #4... Maybe just only have sex with someone who gives informed, enthusiastic consent because it's the right thing to do.

 

Correct.  I just kind of assumed that part.

 

I have a son in college and shockingly I do not worry about him being falsely accused of rape.  He treats women respectfully and has been raised to understand that consent should be clear and not simply a lack of a negative response.

[unsinkable]

Correct. I just kind of assumed that part.

 

I have a son in college and shockingly I do not worry about him being falsely accused of rape. He treats women respectfully and has been raised to understand that consent should be clear and not simply a lack of a negative response.

You didn't raise any of the people who might accuse him, though.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

You didn't raise any of the people who might accuse him, though.

 

And again, there is no evidence that there is this rash of false rape claims that my sons need to be worried about.  There just isn't.  So no, I am not even remotely concerned about the possibility of a false claim as it is no more likely than him being falsely accused of any other crime.

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2015 by ChocolateReignRemix
I really think it's possible to have this discussion without (thinly) veiled personal attacks.

[SKL]

Well, I don't have any sons so it's not like I'm worried I didn't raise mine right.  :/  I just get a little disturbed when I see people imply that they are willing to accept devastating false accusations as part of the price of ... whatever the supposed benefit is to young women.

 

Again, my personal experience is of a guy who is gay and never touched the person who accused him of rape.  She was actually offended that he didn't appreciate her advances, so that is what she did to him.  Luckily she only told her dad at first, and he came over to investigate for himself, and asked other friends who had been present, and eventually she recanted.  That was bad enough.  Had it gone to the cops, it would have been worse.

 

If it could happen to a guy who didn't even want to touch a girl it *could* happen to almost anyone.  Statistically in the past it has not been very common, but let's not downplay the seriousness.  Especially now that big magazines are freely giving women all this "sympathy" and attention without even vetting their "facts."

[unsinkable]

nm 

 

Edited April 9, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Agreed, but reacting is always counterproductive.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

nm 

 

Edited April 9, 2015 by ChocolateReignRemix
This important discussion is being derailed by bickering.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well, I don't have any sons so it's not like I'm worried I didn't raise mine right.  :/  I just get a little disturbed when I see people imply that they are willing to accept devastating false accusations as part of the price of ... whatever the supposed benefit is to young women.

 

Again, my personal experience is of a guy who is gay and never touched the person who accused him of rape.  She was actually offended that he didn't appreciate her advances, so that is what she did to him.  Luckily she only told her dad at first, and he came over to investigate for himself, and asked other friends who had been present, and eventually she recanted.  That was bad enough.  Had it gone to the cops, it would have been worse.

 

If it could happen to a guy who didn't even want to touch a girl it *could* happen to almost anyone.  Statistically in the past it has not been very common, but let's not downplay the seriousness.  Especially now that big magazines are freely giving women all this "sympathy" and attention without even vetting their "facts."

 

When someone goes to the police and says they were mugged, the presumption is that they are telling the truth as the investigation starts, even though we do know that sometimes people have a reason about lying about various crimes. Why is it absurd to give those who say they have been raped/sexually assaulted deserve the same courtesy?

 

If my DH went into a police station and said someone just stole his wallet, would the officer first ask him is he gave it to the person voluntarily?  Would he ask DH if he was drunk and maybe just gave away his money?  Would he be asked if he was really sure he didn't want to have his money stolen? Would he be asked if he enjoyed having his money stolen?

No.

 

Giving sexual assault victims the same courtesy does not mean that the claims should not be investigated or that the accused should be thrown in jail and convicted without due process.  I do think that asking that sexual assault victims be given the same courtesy as other crime victims is reasonable.  Don't you?

 

[MBM]

My husband has a PhD in Statistics from UChicago and has worked with statistics for 35 years. He always keeps his door open when he meets with women. It's easy to keep the door open and minimizes his chances of being falsely accused of something.

 

[SKL]

When someone goes to the police and says they were mugged, the presumption is that they are telling the truth as the investigation starts, even though we do know that sometimes people have a reason about lying about various crimes. Why is it absurd to give those who say they have been raped/sexually assaulted the same courtesy?

 

If my DH went into a police station and said someone just stole his wallet, would the officer first ask him is he gave it to the person voluntarily?  Would he ask DH if he was drunk and maybe just gave away his money?  Would he be asked if he was really sure he didn't want to have his money stolen? Would he be asked if he enjoyed having his money stolen?

No.

 

Giving sexual assault victims the same courtesy does not mean that the claims should not be investigated or that the accused should be thrown in jail and convicted without due process.  I do think that asking that sexual assault victims be given the same courtesy as other crime victims is reasonable.  Don't you?

 

 

I don't think Rolling Stone publicity is what most people mean by "the same courtesy."

 

Somehow someone has decided it's a good idea to encourage women to go sensationally public with unsubstantiated rape claims.  Yes, I have a problem with that.

 

Why did RS think this was a good idea in the first place?  Undoubtedly because it would sell.  They sensationalized an alleged, unsubstantiated frat house rape to make money.  That should be disturbing IMO.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't think Rolling Stone publicity is what most people mean by "the same courtesy."

 

Somehow someone has decided it's a good idea to encourage women to go sensationally public with unsubstantiated rape claims.  Yes, I have a problem with that.

 

Why did RS think this was a good idea in the first place?  Undoubtedly because it would sell.  They sensationalized an alleged, unsubstantiated frat house rape to make money.  That should be disturbing IMO.

 

 

I am pretty sure Rolling Stone isn't the legal system.

 

And what RS did is disturbing on a variety of levels.  And sadly, they could have easily reported on one of many cases that did happen and can be better substantiated.  The worst part is that their mistake now gives people with the attitudes like the ones expressed in this thread to say "see? rape victims lie so we can't believe anyone."

[unsinkable]

My husband has a PhD in Statistics from UChicago and has worked with statistics for 35 years. He always keeps his door open when he meets with women. It's easy to keep the door open and minimizes his chances of being falsely accused of something.

Some might say he's failed utterly at something.

 

:lol:

[SKL]

I am pretty sure Rolling Stone isn't the legal system.

 

The media has at least as much power, if not more, to harm innocent people.

[SKL]

The worst part is that their mistake now gives people with the attitudes like the ones expressed in this thread to say "see? rape victims lie so we can't believe anyone."

 

Right.  Sometimes they do lie.  That is a fact.  Sad, but denying it isn't helpful.

 

Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[MBM]

Some might say he's failed utterly at something.

 

:lol:

 

Or he just doesn't understand basic statistics. :)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Some might say he's failed utterly at something.

 

:lol:

 

Of course I doubt he does that only out of fear of being false accused of rape.  I had the same policy when meeting with students in my office. 

[flyingiguana]

My first thought when that article came out was -- great, what if this turns out to be unsupported.....  Because the allegation wasn't supported by any facts in the article.

 

Let's keep in mind that as far as we can tell, if there were false allegations they came from the journalist.  Who had the motive of wanting to sell the story.

 

There actually isn't that much good motive for a woman to falsely accuse someone of rape.  They (usually) aren't getting paid to come forward and say slanderous things about some innocent guy.

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Or he just doesn't understand basic statistics. :)

 

How many faculty members does your husband know who have been falsely accused of rape?  Is the only reason he keeps a door open is to avoid the possibility of a rape allegation?  Does he also avoid using stairwells where may encounter a woman walking alone?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If there is such a rash of false rape allegations against males in this country, wouldn't one expect there to be more proactive steps taken by male organizations to protect themselves? 

[MBM]

My husband works for the federal government, not at a university. He doesn't consult or crunch numbers to decide what he's going to do to protect himself or our kids. For example, he doesn't look at tables of number when deciding if we shoud do a certain something to keep our kids safe. If it's easy to do, we do it. Simple as that. Keeping a door open is simple, so he does it.

 

ETA: What people do to keep themselves safe isn't always rational. It can't always be reduced to a tidy, formulaic response. In my husband's case, he chooses to keep his door open but will travel alone in an elevator or stairwell with other women.

 

My point, which I'd like to reiterate, is that it's important to have accusations checked. I can't speak for other posters, but that is my point.