Why are we not talking about false accusations of s3xual assault?

[Carol in Cal.]

1 hour ago, umsami said:

Yes.

As for Dr. Ford, she said she was 100% sure that she knew who it was.  Similarly, the woman in law school he exposed himself to, not only was 100% sure, but also multiple other classmates verified her story.

Yes, Dr. Ford did say that.

However, the woman in law school was not sure that it was him--she inferred it but was not certain of it.  That is according to her direct testimony.  Other classmates did not verify that it was him, although some of them thought that it probably was, and generally they viewed her as credible--although she was not entirely sure it was him, but she was sure that it happened, regardless of who it was that did it, and the classmates believed that she believed that.  

[Carol in Cal.]

1 minute ago, Ktgrok said:

But that is the case even when people come forward only days later, not just decades later. It isn't like guys go around raping women in front of witnesses. As for evidence, if he used a condome or she showered, none. Heck, even if they find semen inside her he can claim it was consensual. 

The ugly truth is that it is ALWAYS he said, she said. We just don't want to face that. We want to pretend that if the victime does 'the right thing" the bad guy will be punished. And that isn't true. At all. As women, there is nearly nothing we can do to prove it if we are raped . And that's terrifying. So we go on pretending. 

In the case of the De Anza College rape, one of the (woman) soccer players who intervened saw actual penetration when she burst into the room, but because there was none of that man's semen detected, even that charge was not filed.  Even with 'an audience.'  It's just crazy.

[umsami]

6 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

No, it was already illegal by then.

I work in domestic violence.  Perhaps illegal is the wrong word... prosecuted? Taken seriously??  It could be prosecuted under assault...but as with current DV laws, and a lot more support, there are hundreds of reasons as to why women stay, don't prosecute, etc.  

Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered in June, 1994.  VAWA, the first national DV law, was signed in September, 1994.  She definitely played a part.  (VAWA was not given long-term reauthorized, btw, by the current administration.  We'll see what happens Dec 7th.)

Domestic Violence Gun Ban was 1996. Of course, enforcement of this is very very lax depending on state.  California did enact bans in 1994, though.

Mandatory arrest for DV perps didn't occur until early 2000s.

Castle Rock vs. Gonzales (2005) found that a victim has no constitutional right to the enforcement of a restraining order. 

Once again, I stand by my statement that we're not as progressive as we claim nor have we been.

There was no such thing as date rape in the early 80s.  Movies such as "Sixteen Candles" glamorized getting a girl drunk and then taking advantage of her.  

 

[shawthorne44]

1 hour ago, happysmileylady said:

One thing I didn't realize until the other thread is that mistaken identity is all kinds of mixed up in the idea of false accusations.  I really think that needs to be viewed as something separate.  People often come down so hard on the idea that a victim could possibly mistaken, when in reality the human memory is notoriously faulty, and malleable.  Misidentification is a major issue in the issue of innocent people actually being convicted and sent to jail.  I think we need to start recognizing that trusting the victim but verifying her story doesn't mean not believing her, rather it is simply a recognition that our minds and memories are not always as accurate as we think they are.  

And one of Brett's accusers had been proved wrong even before the hearing.  She was the one that said he had forced little_Brett at her face.   Someone came forward and said, 'That was me, not Brett' (paraphrase from memory).   

Have you heard of the 9/11 memory study?   The day after 9/11, they had people write down what they remember of that day, where they were etc.  Then years later they asked them the same questions.  Bunches of people had different memories and insisted that their current memories are correct and they don't know why they lied on 9/12.  Mind boggling.  

I've also heard that famous people often have people mistakenly replace ordinary people in their memory with the famous person.  They do it sincerely and are certain they are correct.  

 

[umsami]

11 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

Yes, Dr. Ford did say that.

However, the woman in law school was not sure that it was him--she inferred it but was not certain of it.  That is according to her direct testimony.  Other classmates did not verify that it was him, although some of them thought that it probably was, and generally they viewed her as credible--although she was not entirely sure it was him, but she was sure that it happened, regardless of who it was that did it, and the classmates believed that she believed that.  

Not true, Carol.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

I'm not going to post the excerpt from the article because it may be triggering to some.  She is quite clear that it was Brett.  Other people at Yale heard about it within a day or two of the party.

She was never spoken to by the Senate.  Numerous Yale classmates who were *willing to* testify to Kavanaugh's actions were not interviewed by the FBI, even though they tried to approach them.  These are not random people, either, but well respected lawyers from one of the best law schools in the country who understand the seriousness of testifying to such a thing.

[gardenmom5]

27 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

I do wonder if conflating many things considered as "sexual harassment" into the "sexual assault" category do harm in these cases. 

I also often ponder, and have no firm ideas either way,  if there comes a time where is a victim who has not reported an assault case that he or she forfeits a right to come forward at a later point with accusations against an accuser in a public manner. I'm not talking statute of limitations, legally. I'm talking moral implications. At what point, or is there a point, where you might have to realize that coming forward publicly with no witnesses, no corroborating evidence, no physical evidence, no nothing, might do more harm than good for the present day victims because at that point it is simply down to he said, she said, and however can garner the most public support? I am sure that is an unpopular question. But I don't know that it's an unfair question. 

I feel like the presumption of innocence is at risk here. And that has far more implications beyond sexual assault. When you have as much tension on race relations and other things as we do in this country, it would do well to look at who is going to be caught up and probably the most victimized if that presumption is further cast out of the window in general. You don't get to keep it in a neat little box where only prominent figures are the ones cast into the fire without trial. It's going to spread. Or actually maybe it's always been that way and now it's simply spreading to the people in power........But  we aren't just talking about the politicians of this world, or the movie moguls. If our country moves away from that presumption of innocence in a big way it is going to end badly, and it's most likely going to end most badly for the people most unable to defend themselves or afford an adequate defense. 

 

I know it was decades ago - but during the last month I learned the woman in the tibbet's lynching case - recanted. (she admitted it to an author who wrote about the case.)   that was a case  where race was very much a factor, on top of the 'believe the girl'.  no proper investigation was done, and a 14 year old boy was brutally murdered.

[KathyBC]

44 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Where do you suppose boardies, FB friends, etc. are getting their information? These platforms don't exist in a vacuum. You started the thread specifically referencing the Kavanaugh allegations. Yes, the discussion has broadened a bit. I'm just pointing out that the level of anger over false allegations is largely driven by whether or not one believes (or has been told) that they're a significant problem as compared to incidents of sexual assault and that is, I think, largely driven by our media consumption habits.

Your inference here seems to be that people will worry about false allegations only if they are told by media that it's a significant problem. I'm not sure whether you're using the term significant mathematically or otherwise. It should be a troublesome idea to everyone in light of such a public event, regardless of its frequency. The uncritical lack of worry about such a potential threat also betrays media consumption habits.

[livetoread]

Eyewitness misidentification is a big problem with strangers, but not when the person is known to them. If someone I’ve seen around and attended a couple of parties with tries to rape me, I’m not very likely to mix them up with someone else. It would be more of a problem if I’m trying to pick out a stranger who tried to rape me.

[gardenmom5]

6 minutes ago, umsami said:

I work in domestic violence.  Perhaps illegal is the wrong word... prosecuted? Taken seriously??  It could be prosecuted under assault...but as with current DV laws, and a lot more support, there are hundreds of reasons as to why women stay, don't prosecute, etc.  

Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered in June, 1994.  VAWA, the first national DV law, was signed in September, 1994.  She definitely played a part.  (VAWA was not given long-term reauthorized, btw, by the current administration.  We'll see what happens Dec 7th.)

Domestic Violence Gun Ban was 1996. Of course, enforcement of this is very very lax depending on state.  California did enact bans in 1994, though.

Mandatory arrest for DV perps didn't occur until early 2000s.

Castle Rock vs. Gonzales (2005) found that a victim has no constitutional right to the enforcement of a restraining order. 

Once again, I stand by my statement that we're not as progressive as we claim nor have we been.

There was no such thing as date rape in the early 80s.  Movies such as "Sixteen Candles" glamorized getting a girl drunk and then taking advantage of her.  

 

this.   I recall watching some movie back in the 70's, about a "true story" DV case where the cops were there, clearly uncomfortable watching a man beat his wife - but it wasn't illegal and they felt legally their hands were tied.  that case did lead to laws being passed that would allow/require cops to arrest the husband in those cases.  but even women get physical - one of roger moore's wives (yes 007) - used to hit him with a frying pan.

but even today there are cultures and subcultures where dv is considered "normal" and a "husband's/father's right".

date rape did exist - even if it wasn't called that,  illegal, or talked about.    and only losers need to get a girl drunk/drugged before having s3x  . . . . (hear that bill cosby???)

[gardenmom5]

Just now, livetoread said:

Eyewitness misidentification is a big problem with strangers, but not when the person is known to them. If someone I’ve seen around and attended a couple of parties with tries to rape me, I’m not very likely to mix them up with someone else. It would be more of a problem if I’m trying to pick out a stranger who tried to rape me.

this was why my case never progressed.  while they did arrest someone as a suspect, they had no physical evidence it was him and I couldn't be sure it was since he was a stranger.

[livetoread]

3 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

this was why my case never progressed.  while they did arrest someone as a suspect, they had no physical evidence it was him and I couldn't be sure it was since he was a stranger.

I would be a terrible witness. I kind of disassociate when I’m stressed, and while I’m hyper aware of my emotional impressions, I’m not paying close attention to what I see. Even when I’m not stressed, I’m in my own head thinking about something and not noticing what’s around me. Police would hate me.

[unsinkable]

16 minutes ago, umsami said:

Not true, Carol.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

I'm not going to post the excerpt from the article because it may be triggering to some.  She is quite clear that it was Brett.  Other people at Yale heard about it within a day or two of the party.

She was never spoken to by the Senate.  Numerous Yale classmates who were *willing to* testify to Kavanaugh's actions were not interviewed by the FBI, even though they tried to approach them.  These are not random people, either, but well respected lawyers from one of the best law schools in the country who understand the seriousness of testifying to such a thing.

Ramirez was interviewed by the FBI, however, and according to her one of her lawyer's she felt her information got to the right places.

"Ramirez never wanted to speak publicly in the first place, he said. It wasn’t until a reporter with The New Yorker called her and another reporter, this time from The Washington Post, showed up at her house that she decided to talk, he said. She felt like the story was going to get out whether she participated or not, and she wanted to support Christine Blasey Ford, who said Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were in high school, and who was the first woman to accuse him of sexual misconduct.

“Her goal wasn’t to keep (Kavanaugh) off the bench,” Clune said. “Her goal was to tell about what her experience was with him and to make sure that information got to the right places. She felt that she did that.”

Even though Clune criticized the FBI investigation into the accusations against Kavanaugh as restricted, he said the process of being interviewed by the investigators was healing for Ramirez. The interviewers were respectful and thorough, he said.

“That was her opportunity to be heard,” he said. “It was empowering.” "

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/10/11/deborah-ramirez-kavanaugh-clune/

[shawthorne44]

2 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Well, also there were 2 guys that came forward and said they were the 2 guys involved in the assault that Ford described.  

 

I hadn't heard that that study.  That's really interesting because so many people believe that is a day is so seared in their memory.  I know for me, I can say exactly where I was.....but I have photos to back it up lol.  And the whole situation happened to be super unusual.  I was at the Atlantis resort when it happened and we were on a group tour of the resort (DH and I.)  I had won the trip, plus, on the 9th of September, my car had caught fire, while I was driving, with my kid with me.  The whole week contained a lot of unusual situations to....."benchmark" against I guess. 

 

I hadn't heard about the two guys in the Ford assault.  Was that before or after the hearing?   

Yeah, that is why the 9/11 memory study is so mind boggling.  I am absolutely certain of my memory, but who knows?   I know that my parents and I have some distinct differences of memory from my childhood.  Some of that might be because they didn't register anything while I was traumatized.  I was thinking of the study recently reading the Killing the SS book.  It reminded me of the Nuremberg trial play I saw on off-Broadway.  The defense attorney actor was completely awesome.   He portrayed a  stick-up-his-butt Nazi acting sympathetic.  And he did it.  People applauded him.  A Jewish woman behind me asked her companion if they were applauding the actor or what he represented.  I think I might have reacted (and made her feel better).  Pretty sure.  Maybe.   

 

[Carol in Cal.]

29 minutes ago, umsami said:

Not true, Carol.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez

I'm not going to post the excerpt from the article because it may be triggering to some.  She is quite clear that it was Brett.  Other people at Yale heard about it within a day or two of the party.

She was never spoken to by the Senate.  Numerous Yale classmates who were *willing to* testify to Kavanaugh's actions were not interviewed by the FBI, even though they tried to approach them.  These are not random people, either, but well respected lawyers from one of the best law schools in the country who understand the seriousness of testifying to such a thing.

I hope that those who see this read the article.  It is not nearly as clear as you say.

[umsami]

4 minutes ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I hope that those who see this read the article.  It is not nearly as clear as you say.

I won't post the part that may be triggering, but "And yet, after several days of considering the matter carefully, she said, “I’m confident about the pants coming up, and I’m confident about Brett being there.” Ramirez said that what has stayed with her most forcefully is the memory of laughter at her expense from Kavanaugh and the other students. “It was kind of a joke,” she recalled. “And now it’s clear to me it wasn’t a joke.”"

 

I have three sons, one daughter.  I worry far more for my daughter being harassed, assaulted, raped, etc. than I do of my sons being falsely accused.

Edited November 5, 2018 by umsami

[Sneezyone]

59 minutes ago, Quill said:

*sigh* I’m simply saying this board is not a news outlet with its own agenda and is not a group of people all promoting a unified view of events. 

In no way am I trying to distance from the Kavanaugh accusation specifically, though I want and intend to talk about false accusation more broadly. 

I feel like there’s some sort of misunderstanding going on here but I’m not sure what it is. 

I find it extremely worrisome that this false accusation, the Kavanaugh one, is not being broadcast widely (at least not yet) because statistics are not static and, if the plea for believing victims is being made - a good thing - we must acknowledge how wrongly that can go when claims are made falsly. We cannot rest on some past statistic saying false accusations are rare because we are trying to change the variable by saying we need to believe accusations, at least to the point of investigation and hearing. By changing the variable of who gets believed, we change the probability of who might accuse. 

 

I hear what you're saying. I'm arguing that the counter to the bolded, specifically, is that this specific allegation of rape was not, in fact, widely broadcast ergo there'd be no need to widely publicize a false allegation that never got much of a hearing to begin with. It's like reporting the sky isn't falling. I'm left wondering, whoever said it was? I just don't think the Kavanaugh allegation is analogous to other situations because the anger and disbelief conflates credible and publicized allegations with incredible and unpublicized ones. Kavanaugh is not a good poster child for the wrongly accused.

ETA: This has long been an issue for black men so I welcome the increased scrutiny false allegations are receiving. I just don't think the bar for the Kavanaugh's of the world should be different than for anyone else, particularly when, in most of these cases, physical liberty is not at risk.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Sneezyone

[Bluegoat]

54 minutes ago, texasmom33 said:

I do wonder if conflating many things considered as "sexual harassment" into the "sexual assault" category do harm in these cases. 

I also often ponder, and have no firm ideas either way,  if there comes a time where is a victim who has not reported an assault case that he or she forfeits a right to come forward at a later point with accusations against an accuser in a public manner. I'm not talking statute of limitations, legally. I'm talking moral implications. At what point, or is there a point, where you might have to realize that coming forward publicly with no witnesses, no corroborating evidence, no physical evidence, no nothing, might do more harm than good for the present day victims because at that point it is simply down to he said, she said, and however can garner the most public support? I am sure that is an unpopular question. But I don't know that it's an unfair question. 

I feel like the presumption of innocence is at risk here. And that has far more implications beyond sexual assault. When you have as much tension on race relations and other things as we do in this country, it would do well to look at who is going to be caught up and probably the most victimized if that presumption is further cast out of the window in general. You don't get to keep it in a neat little box where only prominent figures are the ones cast into the fire without trial. It's going to spread. Or actually maybe it's always been that way and now it's simply spreading to the people in power........But  we aren't just talking about the politicians of this world, or the movie moguls. If our country moves away from that presumption of innocence in a big way it is going to end badly, and it's most likely going to end most badly for the people most unable to defend themselves or afford an adequate defense. 

 

 

With regard to the bolded - yeah, I kind of think this muddies the waters, as well as people being just jerks being conflated.  Now, there can be kind of blurry edges on some of these things, so it's never going to be 100% clear.  But I thought there was a lot of conflating going on when MeeToo was still big news, and also including things that really weren't about abuse of power but which were about social norms that are accepted by many or some regular men and women, but might be damaging to people involved. People seem to want to point to someone personally at "fault" for that kind of thing too. 

[Carol in Cal.]

37 minutes ago, umsami said:

I work in domestic violence.  Perhaps illegal is the wrong word... prosecuted? Taken seriously??  It could be prosecuted under assault...but as with current DV laws, and a lot more support, there are hundreds of reasons as to why women stay, don't prosecute, etc.  

Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered in June, 1994.  VAWA, the first national DV law, was signed in September, 1994.  She definitely played a part.  (VAWA was not given long-term reauthorized, btw, by the current administration.  We'll see what happens Dec 7th.)

D

 

I live in CA, and domestic violence was being prosecuted earlier than 1994 here.  The local theory about why Nicole wasn't taken seriously was that the perp was OJ, a powerful celebrity, not just because it was DV.  I am aware of the prior attitude that DV is a 'private matter' but it had changed in CA before then--but still, celebrity status carried a lot of weight.  I remember hearing that Nicole said once, "He's going to kill me and he's going to get away with it, because he's OJ."  And that is pretty much what happened.

I know that VAWA did not pass nationally until later, and I know that DV was viewed more helplessly in some other parts of the country at the time.

[Carol in Cal.]

3 minutes ago, umsami said:

I won't post the part that may be triggering, but "And yet, after several days of considering the matter carefully, she said, “I’m confident about the pants coming up, and I’m confident about Brett being there.” 

Right, but she wasn't certain/confident that the perp was Brett.  She thought so/inferred that it was, but was not sure.  That is what I said in the first place.

[SKL]

2 hours ago, Ktgrok said:

Well, even when I was paying attention I never heard about her accusations in the first place. Seems they were not taken credibly in the first place, if I never heard about them really? In other words, her initial accusation passed on by without much attention, same as it being held false. 

Whether or not her accusations were taken credibly (which actually varied depending [at least for many] on how badly they wanted Kavanaugh to be guilty), false accusations are a problem because they are always a threat to the credibility of both accusers and the accused.  Sometimes a big case like this is a jumping off point for discussing a much broader problem.

In a way I am glad people will now step back from the "always believe the accuser" attitude, or at least I hope they will.

I also want more actual rapists to pay for their crimes, but I don't agree that this requires innocent men to be punished for crimes they did not commit.

 

[Reefgazer]

I was wondering why this didn't hit the headlines on CNN, but my guess is that it doesn't fit with one group's political aims and CNN is a branch of one that political group.

[Guest]

Just now, Reefgazer said:

I was wondering why this didn't hit the headlines on CNN, but my guess is that it doesn't fit with one group's political aims and CNN is a branch of one that political group.

True but one of the articles I linked is Huffington Post and I am really quite a,azed they published it. And kudos to them for doing so. 

[KathyBC]

Read the edited post, made much more sense, deleted original response.

Edited November 5, 2018 by KathyBC

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, texasmom33 said:

If someone today accused your husband of sexual assault 20 years ago, what would see as the course of justice in that case? If the woman had no evidence, perhaps simply a “friend” she told and nothing else. Would you automatically believe her? Would you want her to be able to come out in public, make her accusations,  and him be fired from his job with no questions asked? Where is the line? When is that ok and when is it not? 

I don’t think it’s pretending. I think it’s dealing with a very complicated situation in which there is not a good answer, but just because that’s the case you don’t get to throw people under the bus in general. 

The answers for all those questions don't change if it was 20 years ago or 2 days ago. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

I hear what you're saying. I'm arguing that the counter to the bolded, specifically, is that this specific allegation of rape was not, in fact, widely broadcast ergo there'd be no need to widely publicize a false allegation that never got much of a hearing to begin with. It's like reporting the sky isn't falling. I'm left wondering, whoever said it was? I just don't think the Kavanaugh allegation is analogous to other situations because the anger and disbelief conflates credible and publicized allegations with incredible and unpublicized ones. Kavanaugh is not a good poster child for the wrongly accused.

ETA: This has long been an issue for black men so I welcome the increased scrutiny false allegations are receiving. I just don't think the bar for the Kavanaugh's of the world should be different than for anyone else, particularly when, in most of these cases, physical liberty is not at risk.

Well, that is not my perception at all. I knew about it even though I heard virually no news outlets on BK, only what was discussed here and on FB. It was the whole reason some people started to wonder about Kavanaugh, because it was (meant to) show a pattern of behaviour. Most people, myself included, did not feel Ford’s accusation (alone) amounted to much. Drunk teenager in the 80s forced himself on her and acted as though he might rape her. As I said in the thread, a lot of us had similar stories and don’t think that makes a case against a person’s character now. It was corroborating stories, now admittedly false, which made people, myself included, say, “Ok, well wait a minute, though...if this was his behaviour multiple times there may be something that requires examination, here.” I submit that was the entire purpose of the false accusation(s). 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

The answers for all those questions don't change if it was 20 years ago or 2 days ago. 

You are evading what she is asking. 

That is the entire crux of the problem of “believe all women”. It is not acceptable for all men in society to be one accusation away from having their lives catastrophically corrupted. I do not want that for ANY of the men in my life. 

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, Quill said:

Well, that is not my perception at all. I knew about it even though I heard virually no news outlets on BK, only what was discussed here and on FB. It was the whole reason some people started to wonder about Kavanaugh, because it was (meant to) show a pattern of behaviour. Most people, myself included, did not feel Ford’s accusation (alone) amounted to much. Drunk teenager in the 80s forced himself on her and acted as though he might rape her. As I said in the thread, a lot of us had similar stories and don’t think that makes a case against a person’s character now. It was corroborating stories, now admittedly false, which made people, myself included, say, “Ok, well wait a minute, though...if this was his behaviour multiple times there may be something that requires examination, here.” I submit that was the entire purpose of the false accusation(s). 

 

Again, that's why I said our respective media consumption habits are so important. Even here, my perception was that people were discussing Blasey Ford's allegation of ATTEMPTED rape, not actual rape. I never saw a report or discussion of him actually raping someone. I strenuously disagree with your statement that MOST people didn't mind the allegation that a drunken co-ed or teen held a woman down and/or shoved his penis in her face as no big deal. I would go slap happy upside my son's head if there was even the slightest possibility that he was engaging in those behaviors.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Sneezyone

[gardenmom5]

5 minutes ago, Quill said:

You are evading what she is asking. 

That is the entire crux of the problem of “believe all women”. It is not acceptable for all men in society to be one accusation away from having their lives catastrophically corrupted. I do not want that for ANY of the men in my life. 

the bigger problem I have with the "believe all women' crowd (more than some of women maliciously make false accusations)  . . is the "believe all women unless we like the accused" . . . which most certainly happens and there is a very current case in Minnesota.   the Believe all women crowd like the accused, so she is completely ignored even though she has physical evidence and a witness to the assault.

Edited November 5, 2018 by gardenmom5

[SKL]

I keep going back to my unpopular view that we need to do a better job of getting victims to report when the crime occurs.  I realize that is a super complex issue (and I didn't even report the crime committed against me).  Every time I suggest it I'm accused of victim blaming as well as just being stupid.  Well I submit that it is worth trying, as it would address both sides of the issue of credibility of rape accusers.  If a victim is afraid of going straight to the cops, can we at least provide some workable alternatives that preserve the evidence and her credibility?  The main reason to report a rape is to stop the rapist from raping again, isn't it?

Edited November 5, 2018 by SKL

[Guest]

1 hour ago, texasmom33 said:

I do wonder if conflating many things considered as "sexual harassment" into the "sexual assault" category do harm in these cases. 

I also often ponder, and have no firm ideas either way,  if there comes a time where is a victim who has not reported an assault case that he or she forfeits a right to come forward at a later point with accusations against an accuser in a public manner. I'm not talking statute of limitations, legally. I'm talking moral implications. At what point, or is there a point, where you might have to realize that coming forward publicly with no witnesses, no corroborating evidence, no physical evidence, no nothing, might do more harm than good for the present day victims because at that point it is simply down to he said, she said, and however can garner the most public support? I am sure that is an unpopular question. But I don't know that it's an unfair question. 

I feel like the presumption of innocence is at risk here. And that has far more implications beyond sexual assault. When you have as much tension on race relations and other things as we do in this country, it would do well to look at who is going to be caught up and probably the most victimized if that presumption is further cast out of the window in general. You don't get to keep it in a neat little box where only prominent figures are the ones cast into the fire without trial. It's going to spread. Or actually maybe it's always been that way and now it's simply spreading to the people in power........But  we aren't just talking about the politicians of this world, or the movie moguls. If our country moves away from that presumption of innocence in a big way it is going to end badly, and it's most likely going to end most badly for the people most unable to defend themselves or afford an adequate defense. 

 

I agree with everything you said here. I do believe this is the danger. 

I think, as a society, how long it is okay to come forward is an important question to ponder. I’m not even opposed to an actual legal statute of limitations, though I think it needs to be generous in order to cover childhood incidents. 

[unsinkable]

6 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Again, that's why I said our respective media consumption habits are so important. Even here, my perception was that people were discussing Blasey Ford's allegation of ATTEMPTED rape, not actual rape. I never saw a report or discussion of him actually raping someone. I strenuously disagree with your statement that MOST people didn't mind the allegation that a drunken co-ed or teen held a woman down and/or shoved his penis in her face as no big deal. I would go slap happy upside my son's head if there was even the slightest possibility that he was engaging in those behaviors.

You would beat your son "if there was even the slightest possibility" he did those things.

I am appalled .

[Terabith]

I think a lot of people looked at the credibility of Dr. Ford's testimony, coupled with the statements from his friend Judge's book, as well as the stuff from the yearbook, well before even Ramirez's report came out.  That also seemed to have some credibility, with other people testifying about his actions in college, which made it seem plausible that this pattern of behavior did not end in high school.  The third and fourth allegations never really got enough reporting to make much judgment on, and they came so late and with so much grandstanding from Avenatti, that they didn't really factor into at least my thought.  But it was the stuff immediately surrounding his high school (year book, Judge's book, joking statements he made about high school in speeches) that made it very plausible, as well as how incredibly credible of a witness she was.  

[ktgrok]

7 minutes ago, Quill said:

 Drunk teenager in the 80s forced himself on her and acted as though he might rape her. As I said in the thread, a lot of us had similar stories and don’t think that makes a case against a person’s character now.

Wait - what???? Attempting to rape someone doesn't impact on one's character????

4 minutes ago, Quill said:

You are evading what she is asking. 

That is the entire crux of the problem of “believe all women”. It is not acceptable for all men in society to be one accusation away from having their lives catastrophically corrupted. I do not want that for ANY of the men in my life. 

I'm not evading anything. What I originally said was that it doesn't matter if it was 20 years ago or just this past week - either way there usually is no clear evidence. It is almost always he said/she said, no matter how much time has passed. So we shouldn't act like the problem is that so much time passed - that isn't the problem. The problem is that it is nearly impossible to prove rape in most cases. It has nothing to do with time passing and everything to do with the nature of the crime. It is disengenuous to act like the problem is the time passage and that everything would be hunky dory if women spoke up sooner. We'd have the same problem. I could be raped tomorrow and it is very possible I'd have no evidence, and people would say I was just falsely accusing them. Or I could actually falsely accuse someone of raping me and same issue. 

[ktgrok]

7 minutes ago, SKL said:

I keep going back to my unpopular view that we need to do a better job of getting victims to report when the crime occurs.  I realize that is a super complex issue (and I didn't even report the crime committed against me).  Every time I suggest it I'm accused of victim blaming as well as just being stupid.  Well I submit that it is worth trying, as it would address both sides of the issue of credibility of rape accusers.  If a victim is afraid of going straight to the cops, can we at least provide some workable alternatives that preserve the evidence and her credibility?  The main reason to report a rape is to stop the rapist from raping again, isn't it?

How? Most of the time it won't matter anyway. She knows that. She knows that going forward ONLY likely hurts herself, not the rapist. IF IF IF she somehow manages to convince herself to go get a rape kit done (retraumatizing herself) before taking a shower or evidence being degraded, even then, IF they find body hair of his or semen (and men know to use a condom now), all that proves is sex. It doesn't do a darned thing to prove rape. Even if there is bruising, it doesn't prove rape, just rough sex. Then she gets to hear how "she wanted it rough". More trauma. All for likley no justice. 

The truth is, it is he said/she said and knowing that, women are not going to report. And if they do, it probably won't matter anyway. It just sucks. Sucks for the man many many many women who are raped, and for the few men who are falsely accused. (and vice versa regarding gender)

[ktgrok]

Now, I will say that in the case of date rape drugs, going forward sooner WOULD make a difference. Except....if you are drugged, it's hard to remember what happened, and by the time you figure it out it is too late to check for drugs anyway. She is much more likely to initially blame herself, and feel ashamed, than to run to the cops first thing to report something she doesn't even remember happening. And often women who are drugged are already drinking, so any issues are going to be blamed on that. BTDT. Took me a while to figure out what happend, and by then it was too late to check for drugs anyway, so never bothered to do anything. 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Again, that's why I said our respective media consumption habits are so important. Even here, my perception was that people were discussing Blasey Ford's allegation of ATTEMPTED rape, not actual rape. I never saw a report or discussion of him actually raping someone. I strenuously disagree with your statement that MOST people didn't mind the allegation that a drunken co-ed or teen held a woman down and/or shoved his penis in her face as no big deal. I would go slap happy upside my son's head if there was even the slightest possibility that he was engaging in those behaviors.

And as I said from the beginning, the term “attempted rape” is specifically meant to frame it as horrible. As I said, I had a similar incident happen to me but have never described it as “attempted rape” and never will do so. There must be many tens of thousands of young women who experienced a similar incident and don’t think it was for themselves personally, any big deal. 

Also, what we expect from our sons now is different from what was expected in the eighties. I would slap my son upside his dang head, too, if I knew him to do either of those things. But we have also evolved as a society and we can’t judge behavior from forty years ago by the same standard as we would today. 

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, unsinkable said:

You would beat your son "if there was even the slightest possibility" he did those things.

I am appalled .

 

People in positions of power are happy to condemn boys like mine to death row on the basis of mere allegations. If proverbially knocking some sense into him will keep him away from highly compromising situations and people then that's precisely what I will do and I make ZERO apologies for that to you or anyone else. At some point, you might want to find a hobby other than following e around the forums making snide remarks.

[Sneezyone]

Just now, Quill said:

And as I said from the beginning, the term “attempted rape” is specifically meant to frame it as horrible. As I said, I had a similar incident happen to me but have never described it as “attempted rape” and never will do so. There must be many tens of thousands of young women who experienced a similar incident and don’t think it was for themselves personally, any big deal. 

Also, what we expect from our sons now is different from what was expected in the eighties. I would slap my son upside his dang head, too, if I knew him to do either of those things. But we have also evolved as a society and we can’t judge behavior from forty years ago by the same standard as we would today. 

 

Attempted rape is an accurate term for the behavior she described. And, no, what was expected of men in *my* family hasn't changed a bit.

[unsinkable]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

People in positions of power are happy to condemn boys like mine to death row on the basis of mere allegations. If proverbially knocking some sense into him will keep him away from highly compromising situations and people then that's precisely what I will do and I make ZERO apologies for that to you or anyone else. At some point, you might want to find a hobby other than following e around the forums making snide remarks.

You wrote what you wrote. I speak up against violence, including verbal violence, on this board all. the. time.

Words matter. 

You said it, not me.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Attempted rape is an accurate term for the behavior she described. And, no, what was expected of men in *my* family hasn't changed a bit.

If what he was accused of by Ford had been sufficiently and unanimously horrible, there would have been ZERO reason for others to put their false accusations into the hat. The false accusation(s) were meant to open the possibility that he had defective and predatory character on numerous ocassions. It was exploitative of the #metoo movement. 

[SKL]

3 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

How? Most of the time it won't matter anyway. She knows that. She knows that going forward ONLY likely hurts herself, not the rapist. IF IF IF she somehow manages to convince herself to go get a rape kit done (retraumatizing herself) before taking a shower or evidence being degraded, even then, IF they find body hair of his or semen (and men know to use a condom now), all that proves is sex. It doesn't do a darned thing to prove rape. Even if there is bruising, it doesn't prove rape, just rough sex. Then she gets to hear how "she wanted it rough". More trauma. All for likley no justice. 

The truth is, it is he said/she said and knowing that, women are not going to report. And if they do, it probably won't matter anyway. It just sucks. Sucks for the man many many many women who are raped, and for the few men who are falsely accused. (and vice versa regarding gender)

Forensics are pretty advanced these days.  I disagree that it would not matter.  At least she would have physical proof that he was in close contact with her on a specific day and in a specific location.  Then the only open question would be whether she consented.  There would be no "she doesn't know where or when, how can she remember who or what" kind of arguments down the line.

I am no expert, but I'll bet that if we pulled together a committee of smart women who have been through it themselves, they could come up with something better than "just keep quiet" or "wait until the stakes are super high so it will damage him whether you can prove it or not."

[ktgrok]

2 minutes ago, SKL said:

Forensics are pretty advanced these days.  I disagree that it would not matter.  At least she would have physical proof that he was in close contact with her on a specific day and in a specific location.  Then the only open question would be whether she consented.  There would be no "she doesn't know where or when, how can she remember who or what" kind of arguments down the line.

I am no expert, but I'll bet that if we pulled together a committee of smart women who have been through it themselves, they could come up with something better than "just keep quiet" or "wait until the stakes are super high so it will damage him whether you can prove it or not."

Which is a huge question, and can't be proven. 

[Sneezyone]

14 minutes ago, Quill said:

If what he was accused of by Ford had been sufficiently and unanimously horrible, there would have been ZERO reason for others to put their false accusations into the hat. The false accusation(s) were meant to open the possibility that he had defective and predatory character on numerous ocassions. It was exploitative of the #metoo movement. 

 

Honestly, I don't know what possesses people to make false allegations but I've no reason to think that people who make them are doing so to bolster the allegations of others. I think it's far more likely, given the overall climate of celebrity worship, that people are seeking their moment in the spotlight. The 'any publicity is good publicity undercurrent' is very strong.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Sneezyone

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

How? Most of the time it won't matter anyway. She knows that. She knows that going forward ONLY likely hurts herself, not the rapist. IF IF IF she somehow manages to convince herself to go get a rape kit done (retraumatizing herself) before taking a shower or evidence being degraded, even then, IF they find body hair of his or semen (and men know to use a condom now), all that proves is sex. It doesn't do a darned thing to prove rape. Even if there is bruising, it doesn't prove rape, just rough sex. Then she gets to hear how "she wanted it rough". More trauma. All for likley no justice. 

The truth is, it is he said/she said and knowing that, women are not going to report. And if they do, it probably won't matter anyway. It just sucks. Sucks for the man many many many women who are raped, and for the few men who are falsely accused. (and vice versa regarding gender)

Well, fighting evil is not for the weak-willed. If someone raped me tomorrow, unless they kill me too, I am going to the police. Is justice going to absolutely, defintiely happen? No; nothing is certain. But it for dang sure isn’t going to happen while I cower in my shower and cry. Does it require bravery? Yes! Is it traumatic all over again? I have no doubt! But, in weighing my options, I have to assume justice is more likely by going to the police as soon as I can scrape myself off the floor and dial.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

 

Honestly, I don't know what possesses people to make false allegations but I've no reason to think that people who make them are doing so to bolster the allegations of others. I think it's far more likely, given the overall climate of celebrity worship, that people are seeking their moment in the spotlight. The 'any publicity is good publicity undercurrent' is very strong.

From the article I linked in the OP:

Quote

ne of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s accusers admitted this week that she made up her lurid tale of a backseat car rape, saying it “was a tactic” to try to derail the judge’s confirmation to the Supreme Court

So, at least in this instance, the liar said her purpose was a tactic to try and derail his nomination. 

[Bluegoat]

44 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

the bigger problem I have with the "believe all women' crowd (more than some of women maliciously make false accusations)  . . is the "believe all women unless we like the accused" . . . which most certainly happens and there is a very current case in Minnesota.   the Believe all women crowd like the accused, so she is completely ignored even though she has physical evidence and a witness to the assault.

 

Yes, I think this is an interesting point.  In reality, everyone probably does have a line where they would not believe someone.  But when the "official" approach says that we can't do that, the reasons for believing or not believing someone go unexamined - it becomes so much more vulnerable to personal bias.  And I don't mean that the bias is people being jerks, they are just reacting to their personal experience or reaction to the person.

It's as if that ends up making it more subjective rather than less so.

[Bluegoat]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

 

I hear what you're saying. I'm arguing that the counter to the bolded, specifically, is that this specific allegation of rape was not, in fact, widely broadcast ergo there'd be no need to widely publicize a false allegation that never got much of a hearing to begin with. It's like reporting the sky isn't falling. I'm left wondering, whoever said it was? I just don't think the Kavanaugh allegation is analogous to other situations because the anger and disbelief conflates credible and publicized allegations with incredible and unpublicized ones. Kavanaugh is not a good poster child for the wrongly accused.

ETA: This has long been an issue for black men so I welcome the increased scrutiny false allegations are receiving. I just don't think the bar for the Kavanaugh's of the world should be different than for anyone else, particularly when, in most of these cases, physical liberty is not at risk.

 

I would say the reason that this is interesting is not so much about him - it's because it's a bit of a window on some people maliciously for their own gain making accusations, and a certain segment seems to think that women just don't do that.  

[maize]

I never heard the rape in the car story so it definitely didn't impact my thinking on the Kavanaugh hearing which was that, given the credible accounts of Dr. Ford and the Yale incident, thorough investigation was warranted before proceeding with confirmation.

If Kavanaugh himself were confident that all allegations were false I would have expected him to be the first to call for investigation. If his name remains sullied in public opinion he has only himself to blame for not insisting on proper investigation to clear it.

We don't and shouldn't condemn based on an allegation. We should investigate.

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, Quill said:

From the article I linked in the OP:

So, at least in this instance, the liar said her purpose was a tactic to try and derail his nomination. 

 

I don't think you can extrapolate from her late-to-the-party claims what the majority of false accusers have as a motive. As I said, I don't think Kavanaugh is a good example of someone falsely accused of wrongdoing.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Which is a huge question, and can't be proven. 

It is a huge question, but IMO, this is one area where “we” (society) have brought more trouble upon us by “liberating” women to do, say, dress and go wherever desired without concern for how it may appear. If the UPS guy rapes me tomorrow, I don’t think many people will seriously wonder if it was consensual. Enough people know my character that at least my “she said” is supportable by my known behavior. 

*I am not suggesting that a free-wheeling good-time girl could not be raped, but that in a contest, I don’t want to be known as the good-time girl and therefore have it be quite dubious whether or not consent was present.