GOP State Senator blames rape victim.

[Andrew_Fireborn]

There was a skit on Chapelle's show about "consent forms"... Sometimes, it seems like an brilliant idea, if it wouldn't be such a mood kill.

As for this case: How much time passed between the "incident" and it's report? Although, that's not evidence either way... Given the factors involved, including the relation to a politician...

I was poking fun at the absolute nature of Samuel's statement, not questioning the legality of the current article. In any case, Sex and Consent are very tricky issues, and any adult, no matter how old, should be very careful when attempting such a relationship.

(Damn Eleas and his quick posting )

Text and sarcasm, and all that. Though, I don't think anyone here believes a politician of any rank would put their career on the line for a statutory rape case...

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I've generally been content to lurk around, but this really got under my skin, so this is my first post.

Reading into the case i saw no actual evidence of rape, it was basically he says-she says. They both say that they had sex, they disagree on whether or not it was consensual. There is no other evidence one way or another. In cases like these, the woman's past sexual history IS valid evidence.

Wrong, you jackass. In a rape case, it doesn't matter if the victim was Sister Frigid McFrostypants the 87 year old nun, or the Sue McSluttyskirt the village bicycle. A woman's past sexual history is only considered valid evidence by misogynist pricks who believe that a woman's place is in the kitchen, and that women who dress like "whores" deserve to be raped.

If she has a proven history of riding the Cock Carousel, chances are she jumped in willingly.Citation needed.

Fixed that for you. If you make a statement such as this, you're expected to back it up and not say "Google XYZ, because I'm too fucking lazy to back up my own point."

This is NOT "blaming the victim", it's evidence that the victim may be lying her ass off in the first place and it's a damn shame that Feminists convinced Western Governments to disallow a woman's past sexual history as evidence.

And here you go, hyperventillating about those EVIL FEMINAZIS because, by God, if it weren't for them, the little women would know their place in society.

In any other criminal case, where there is no hard evidence and the case has to be judged based on deciding which of the the two parties giving is lying, and any circumstantial evidence not directly related to the case at hand that establishes/diminishes the credibility of the testimony is perfectly acceptable, but rape is apparently "not like other crimes" as the feminists like to say.

And yet, the average man is capable of thoroughly intimidating, overpowering, and otherwise compromising the average woman. All that a woman being the village bicycle demonstrates is that the putative rapist thought she'd be an easy mark. It does not prove that she wanted it, or that she's using her feminine wiles to entrap him with false accusations. Unless, of course, one is a misogynist asshole living on Planet Cro-Magnon.

I would suggest, to the army of self righteous defenders of women's purity on this thread, that they google "false rape accusation". There are hundred's of well documented cases of women accusing me of rape for inane reasons such as:

Is that your Freudian slip showing? Oh yeah, and do see my remark above about how we're not expected to prove your point for you. Of course, pointing to a bunch of news stories is little better than anecdotal evidence. You will be expected to demonstrate that there are "hundreds of well documented cases" and that they represent a significant fraction of the total rape cases.

[Serafina]

I think he thinks that sexually active women are somewho more dishonest.
Perhaps because they do not stay with one partner?

Either way, it's false - and possibly a double standard. Sex doesn't need a relationship - sometimes you just want to fuck, but do not want a relationship. That is not dishonest - indeed, it is more honest that entering a relationship just for sex.

But go ahead - show us a study that shows how sexually active women (or humans in general) are more prone to dishonesty.

[Terralthra]

Five people responded to his post with basically the exact same statements, only varying the amount of outrage. A bit excessive, no?

[PhatMaus]

Sigh, perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough.

I'm not saying that it's BAD for a woman to be highly sexually active, just that the fact shouldn't be banned as a factor in determining the credibility of testimony, especially when the believability of testimony is the only thing a case hinges on. If it can be shown that the accuser has a demonstrable record of getting drunk and jumping into bed with anyone who came her way, it can put a real crimp in the claim that this one time she said no and she didn't just decide that she didn't like it the next morning, or didn't want her boyfriend to think she's a slut(Please note that it's telling that in this case the accused were thrown straight into jail on mere accusation and the cops wasted no time in telling the press all the lurid details of the fictional encounter. Does anyone seriously believe that if one of them hadn't filmed it, they'd be doing their 25 years in jail. On the strength of a mere accusation)

About the case in the thread's OP, I can't find any evidence other than that of the accuser. There is a newspaper article where accuser's family says that she was too drunk to give consent, but the Senator's open letter says that that's just what they told the media and didn't mention it in court. Has anyone been able to find out anything more concrete? I'm genuinely curious.

A rather interesting bit of the story that no one seems to have noticed is that the "victim" in question is also the sister of the supposed rapists wife. What I think happened is that the guy cheated on his wife with her hot 16yr old sister. Immoral, but not illegal. Then, after it was found out, in order not to shame herself in front of her sister by admitting that she cheated with her husband, she claimed that she was raped. She then told a good enough sob story in court and convinced the jury to convict with no corroborating evidence whatsoever.

P.S. I don't think Cro-Magon is a good insult, I doesn't quite roll off the tongue.

[Lusankya]

Actually, one could argue that in a rape accusation, someone who the cock carousel" is actually more trustworthy than someone who claims to be sweet and virginal.*

Why? The virgin has a lot more to lose in terms of reputation if people find out that she's been sleeping with guys than the one who is already quite sexually active. The known slut doesn't really have that great an incentive to make people believe that she's only willingly slept with 35 guys, as opposed to 36.


*This is not meant to be taken as an implication in any way that all rape claims should not be treated with equal respect.

[Oskuro]

I'm not saying that it's BAD for a woman to be highly sexually active, just that the fact shouldn't be banned as a factor in determining the credibility of testimony

Except that you are saying it is bad. Tell me, if the man has a known history of being sexually active, does it challenge his credibility?

Actually, don't bother answering, you're obviously going to backpeddle anyway, the big problem here is not only about what you are saying, but about how you are saying it. Your whole post feels full of comptempt for promiscuous women (Cock carrousel anyone?), and at no point do you make any effort to generalize your point across genders. You obviously feel threathened by all these stalwart defenders of female purity (really, you can gather the contempt in that with an ice cream scoop).

Actually, one could argue that in a rape accusation, someone who the cock carousel" is actually more trustworthy than someone who claims to be sweet and virginal.*

It also turns out that virgins, both male and female, are more likely to screw up and get in a bad sexual situation due to their ignorance of sex and whatever hangups they have regarding peer pressure and social expectations. Heck, forget women, "Hell hath no fury like a virgin scorned" (Yup, I've been dealing with the massive blowup after a virgin friend of mine got rejected)

But, more seriously, even a Gangbang-specialised Porn Star could be raped. I'll say it again, what makes it a rape is not the sex, but the "NO" that precedes it.

[SirNitram]

A rather interesting bit of the story that no one seems to have noticed is that the "victim" in question is also the sister of the supposed rapists wife. What I think happened is that the guy cheated on his wife with her hot 16yr old sister. Immoral, but not illegal. Then, after it was found out, in order not to shame herself in front of her sister by admitting that she cheated with her husband, she claimed that she was raped. She then told a good enough sob story in court and convinced the jury to convict with no corroborating evidence whatsoever.

Wow. I mean, you're a disgusting bigot with a whole helping of Rapist Apologist in for good measure, but you see a relationship which puts the rapist in power over the victim, and you immediately assume it's consential.

But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. You think a woman being sexually active should be called into question in rape trials. You admit to being accused of rape. Perhaps it's because you don't want to admit you WANT to see rape as only out of some massive sex drive. It's not. Anyone in this day and age should be able to work out it's about one thing: POWER. And power is what makes a stepchild even more threatened.

Kiddo, I don't care how you backpeddal. Pray you never meet my wife. If she doesn't rip you a new one, I will. Like most non-bigots, I like women, and will be happy to defend them from those like you.

[aieeegrunt]

I don't think a women's sexual history should disqualify her testimony for obvious reasons, and this guy's been dogpiled enough.

Is there any validity to his other claim, that accusation = conviction? This would be really bad for equally obvious reasons, but I don't know how common such a thing as "without the video of the incident, an innocent man would have been in prison for 25 years based solely on he said she said" actually is.

[Serafina]

Being accused of rape is obviously very bad for a mans reputation with his family, friends, coworkers and whatnot.
Especially if those are not retared dickholes that think that women deserve to be raped if they are not chaste.

And yes, therer is some validity to the claim that this can be abused. However, this is also true for nearly every other crime.
However, it is not true that "innocent until proven guilty" is not true in rape cases, at least not from a legal standpoint (the rumor mill is something else entirely). It requires just as much evidence as everything else - you won't be sent to jail just because a woman said so.
It might be that the rate of mistrials is higher since the evidence tends to be spottier and can thus be wrongly interpretated - perhaps it's also true that the spotty evidence tends to favor the accusing party.
However, he would have to back that up with statistics.

Either way - rape is a highly emotional crime, and i would not be surprised if the court system is less reliable in such cases as in others. However, that does not translate into any fault of the accusing party.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Sigh, perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough.

You explained yourself plenty well.

I'm not saying that it's BAD for a woman to be highly sexually active, just that the fact shouldn't be banned as a factor in determining the credibility of testimony, especially when the believability of testimony is the only thing a case hinges on.

So, to turn this around, let's say we have Gay Joey the Gigolo, known far and wide for not only loving the cock, but loving it in enormous quantities. Or even Straight Gary the Gigolo, who conquers women like Genghis Khan conquered Asia. Say they were arrested for public indecency, or something, and spent the night in jail. While they were there, Bubba in Cellblock A bends them over and rapes them six ways from Sunday. Nobody else witnesses the acts. Are you saying that Bubba should get off because Joey or Gary are both highly sexually active men and, thus, might've wanted it in some way? Or, say, Janice the lesbian; who regularly enjoys waking up in the beds of strange women. If she gets raped by some man, are we to say that the rapist should get off because of Janice's colorful sexual history?

If it can be shown that the accuser has a demonstrable record of getting drunk and jumping into bed with anyone who came her way, it can put a real crimp in the claim that this one time she said no and she didn't just decide that she didn't like it the next morning,

You are, of course, aware that if you disinhibit someone with alcohol, or render them into an alcoholic stupor and engage in sexual activities with them . . . that such would legitimately be considered rape? Someone can be impaired to the point where they cannot possibly be construed as giving their informed consent.

or didn't want her boyfriend to think she's a slut(Please note that it's telling that in this case the accused were thrown straight into jail on mere accusation and the cops wasted no time in telling the press all the lurid details of the fictional encounter. Does anyone seriously believe that if one of them hadn't filmed it, they'd be doing their 25 years in jail. On the strength of a mere accusation)

I was asking for actual statistics that would demonstrate that women falsely accusing men of rape makes up a significant enough fraction of total rape cases that the justice system should be more lenient to accused rapists because the accuser might be making it up. Sensationalized news stories != statistical data.

A rather interesting bit of the story that no one seems to have noticed is that the "victim" in question is also the sister of the supposed rapists wife.

So fucking what? According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, 93% of juvenille rape victims knew their attacker.

What I think happened is that the guy cheated on his wife with her hot 16yr old sister. Immoral, but not illegal.

A sixteen year old is, in many states, not legally capable of giving informed consent (except for Nevada . . . and only if you're straight.) Scientific studies have proven that teenagers simply do not have the decision-making apparatus that adults do. That part of the brain isn't fully developed until a person's early twenties. And there's very little consensual about a 31 year old person and a 16 year old person having sex. The yawning gap in life experience and authority automatically makes this so. Especially when the aforementioned 31 year old is as well-connected as he is.

[Serafina]

How did i overlook this.
Anyway, proceeding with Cleansing Routine Delta - High Levels of Bullshit detected! Eredication necessary!

Sigh, perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough.

Oh, you did. Unfortuntely for you, your oppinion shows that you are a bigoted moron.

I'm not saying that it's BAD for a woman to be highly sexually active, just that the fact shouldn't be banned as a factor in determining the credibility of testimony

And how makes being highly sexually active one less credible?
Because that's what you are implying - and that implication says that it IS bad to be sexually active.

If it can be shown that the accuser has a demonstrable record of getting drunk and jumping into bed with anyone who came her way, it can put a real crimp in the claim that this one time she said no and she didn't just decide that she didn't like it the next morning,

"She is sleeping around, so it's unlikely that she said no".
Bravo - you truly are a bigot.

or didn't want her boyfriend to think she's a slut(Please note that it's telling that in this case the accused were thrown straight into jail on mere accusation and the cops wasted no time in telling the press all the lurid details of the fictional encounter. Does anyone seriously believe that if one of them hadn't filmed it, they'd be doing their 25 years in jail. On the strength of a mere accusation)

Statistics, asshole. They are different from single cases.
Here is what i want to see you procure:
-That sexual activity increases the odds of lying about being raped
-The mistrial rate for rape cases
Both should be easy to find, if they exist. Do so. Now.

I could likewise procure single cases for nearly every crime imaginable where mistrials were conducted. Can i therefore conclude that this is true for a significant percentage of these crimes?

About the case in the thread's OP, I can't find any evidence other than that of the accuser. There is a newspaper article where accuser's family says that she was too drunk to give consent, but the Senator's open letter says that that's just what they told the media and didn't mention it in court. Has anyone been able to find out anything more concrete? I'm genuinely curious.

If she was too drunk to give consent (which likely means that she was unconscious), then YES, it WAS rape.
If you have sex with someone without their consent, it IS RAPE.

A rather interesting bit of the story that no one seems to have noticed is that the "victim" in question is also the sister of the supposed rapists wife. What I think happened is that the guy cheated on his wife with her hot 16yr old sister. Immoral, but not illegal. Then, after it was found out, in order not to shame herself in front of her sister by admitting that she cheated with her husband, she claimed that she was raped. She then told a good enough sob story in court and convinced the jury to convict with no corroborating evidence whatsoever.

Juries ARE a problem - but not one that is to be blamed on rape victims, you hatfucker.

Furthermore - what if she did not want to sleep with him (due to him being married to her sister) and he therefore raped her?
That explanation is just as likely, at least until further evidence can be obtained.

P.S. I don't think Cro-Magon is a good insult, I doesn't quite roll off the tongue.

Indeed it isn't - a Cro-Magnong would likely be more open-minded than you.
Rather, you are an rape-apologistic mysognistic prick - a RAMP.


Oh, and another thing:
I actually agree with you! Yes, really - accusations of rape CAN be abused. However, this is mostly limited to public relations, not to the court system - at least in Germany. If it's different in the USA, then it is most likely a problem with your court system.
However, that does NOT excuse or explain your obviously bigoted statements. Which are, to summarize:
-that sexually active woman are more likely to lie (about being raped).
-that sexually active woman can be assumed to be more likely to give consent.
-that a significant majority of rape cases are fraudulent
-that rape victims are to be blamed for the actions of the media
This is simply horrendously bigoted. Which makes you a bigoted retard.

[PhatMaus]

So, to turn this around, let's say we have Gay Joey the Gigolo, known far and wide for not only loving the cock, but loving it in enormous quantities. Or even Straight Gary the Gigolo, who conquers women like Genghis Khan conquered Asia. Say they were arrested for public indecency, or something, and spent the night in jail. While they were there, Bubba in Cellblock A bends them over and rapes them six ways from Sunday. Nobody else witnesses the acts. Are you saying that Bubba should get off because Joey or Gary are both highly sexually active men and, thus, might've wanted it in some way? Or, say, Janice the lesbian; who regularly enjoys waking up in the beds of strange women. If she gets raped by some man, are we to say that the rapist should get off because of Janice's colorful sexual history?

Aha! Now we can perhaps start getting onto the same communication frequencies.

In the above example, of course Joey's history does not have any influence on the case, because he does not usually spend a lot of time in jail cells with people like Bubba . Just like a woman's sexual history is irrelevant if she claims she was raped by a stranger in an alley. However, if Joey is known to love getting reamed in the toilets of his favorite gay club and one fine evening he and Bubba were seen going to the toilets together and the next morning Joey files a rape report, it's pretty reasonable to ask:"Oh yeah? What was so different about this time?"

In addition it should be noted that the Rape Shield laws that prevent examining sexual history also preclude bringing up past false rape accusations. This isn't pertinent to in this case, but I still think it's a travesty in general.

You admit to being accused of rape.

What are you smoking? I'd like some, coz I sure as hell said nothing of the sort.

I was asking for actual statistics that would demonstrate that women falsely accusing men of rape makes up a significant enough fraction of total rape cases that the justice system should be more lenient to accused rapists because the accuser might be making it up. Sensationalized news stories != statistical data.

False rape is such a hot potato that no one want's to do any thorough studies. This page, lists a number of studies, of which the only truly thorough one with a large data set was performed by Charles P McDowell (McDowell & Hibler, 1985) of the U.S. Air Force Special Studies Division who was commissioned to study rape accusations made on Air Force bases.

The McDowell team studied 556 rape allegations. Of that total, 256 could not be conclusively verified as rape. That left 300 authenticated cases of which 220 were judged to be truthful and 80, or 27%, were judged as false. In his report Charles McDowell stated that extra rigor was applied to the investigation of potentially false allegations. To be considered false one or more of the following criteria had to be met: the victim unequivocally admitted to false allegation, indicated deception in a polygraph test, and provided a plausible recantation. Even by these strict standards, slightly more than one out of four rape charges were judged to be false.

The McDowell report has itself generated controversy even though, when rape is a frequent media topic, it is not widely known. Its calculations are no doubt problematic enough to raise serious questions. If, out of 556 rape allegations, 256 could not be conclusively verified as rape, then a large number, 46%, entered a gray area within which more than a few, if not all, of the accusations could have been authentic. If so, the 27% false allegation figure obtained from the remaining 300 cases could be badly skewed. Moreover, the study itself focused on a possibly non-representative population of military personnel.

The McDowell team did in fact address these questions in follow-up studies. They recruited independent reviewers who were given 25 criteria derived from the profiles of the women who openly admitted making a false allegation. If all three reviewers agreed that the rape allegation was false, it was then listed by that description. The result: 60% of the accusations were identified as false. McDowell also took his study outside the military by examining police files from a major midwestern and a southwestern city. He found that the finding of 60% held (Farrell, 1993, pp. 321-329).

Some of the other studies mentioned in the article produce even higher numbers, but they didn't have the thoroughness and data-set size of this one.
If you can find a more up to date study performed with the same thoroughness on a large enough data-set, please let me know. In the meantime, "sensationalized news stories" are all we have to go on.

You obviously feel threathened by all these stalwart defenders of female purity (really, you can gather the contempt in that with an ice cream scoop).

You're quite right, I do feel contempt, because most of my friends and colleagues and flat out refuse to believe that a woman could make a false rape claim and the Conservative ones are the worst in this regard, always hoping to be the White Knight in Shining Armor. They have an amazing ability to Double Think their way around any evidence to the contrary.

The same stalwart defenders are highly represented in the police force. In the case linked to in my previous post the 4 guys were thrown straight in jail in lieu of a $500,000! bail on the strength of an unsubstantiated accusation and reported being abused by the cops and guards who all thought they were guilty. Yes, contempt is the perfect description of my feelings on the matter.

P.S. Why does everyone think I favor virginity? I'm just saying that women are as capable of being lying and malicious as anyone and should not be considered to have pure motives by default. Our society has rightfully gotten rid of Victorian notions of women's helplessness, but not the Victorian idea of women's inherent purity.

[Simon_Jester]

Aha! Now we can perhaps start getting onto the same communication frequencies.

In the above example, of course Joey's history does not have any influence on the case, because he does not usually spend a lot of time in jail cells with people like Bubba . Just like a woman's sexual history is irrelevant if she claims she was raped by a stranger in an alley. However, if Joey is known to love getting reamed in the toilets of his favorite gay club and one fine evening he and Bubba were seen going to the toilets together and the next morning Joey files a rape report, it's pretty reasonable to ask:"Oh yeah? What was so different about this time?"

Why? I mean, the accusation itself shouldn't be enough regardless of Joe's past sexual history. And if there's supporting evidence that this time was different (say, Joe not getting along with Bubba beforehand, or Bubba being Joe's boss at work)... that answers your question quite well in any case.

In addition it should be noted that the Rape Shield laws that prevent examining sexual history also preclude bringing up past false rape accusations. This isn't pertinent to in this case, but I still think it's a travesty in general.

How do they do so?

[Anguirus]

To be considered false one or more of the following criteria had to be met: the victim unequivocally admitted to false allegation, indicated deception in a polygraph test, and provided a plausible recantation. Even by these strict standards, slightly more than one out of four rape charges were judged to be false.

This is horseshit. According to this, a case could be deemed "false" by these researchers on the basis of polygraph evidence alone.

[Simon_Jester]

And polygraphs, as we know, are crap. Among other things they indicate lies when the subject is nervous... like, say, when they're being pressured to "admit" to faking a rape charge.

[Serafina]

Again he claims that "if you are sexually active, you are asking to be raped".

However, if Joey is known to love getting reamed in the toilets of his favorite gay club and one fine evening he and Bubba were seen going to the toilets together and the next morning Joey files a rape report, it's pretty reasonable to ask:"Oh yeah? What was so different about this time?"

Listen up, asshole:
Offer a morally OR statistically justified explanation for this assertion.

This is a direct challenge in a debate. You already ignored two, i would advise you not to continue down this path.

False rape is such a hot potato that no one want's to do any thorough studies. This page, lists a number of studies, of which the only truly thorough one with a large data set was performed by Charles P McDowell (McDowell & Hibler, 1985) of the U.S. Air Force Special Studies Division who was commissioned to study rape accusations made on Air Force bases.

Your link leads to a heavily oppinonated page, citing statistics without linking to the source.
It also makes several false claims - for example, DNA evidence (as it relates to rape) can only be obtained several weeks (maximum) after the crime, simply because it deterioates. It is therefore impossible that prisoners are released due to this evidence (since it would be unobtainable if it was not obtained during the trial).
Furthermore, military bases hardly represent the typical population - studies regarding them are therefore not applicable to the general population.

Cite a proper study, not this editorial BS.
Furthermore - even if we take this as truth, it does NOT justify your assertion that sexually active women are more likely to lie about being raped. You are therefore still blaming the victim based on your bias.

P.S. Why does everyone think I favor virginity? I'm just saying that women are as capable of being lying and malicious as anyone and should not be considered to have pure motives by default. Our society has rightfully gotten rid of Victorian notions of women's helplessness, but not the Victorian idea of women's inherent purity.

LIAR!
You repedeately stated that you think that a sexually active woman is more likely to lie about her being raped.
You are either unwilling or unable to back up this claim, and yet you continue to make it.

Also, you have not yet backed up your mysognistic claim that they get more sympathy due to being women. You own "source" says that this also happens with children&sexual abuse.
This clearly points to the conclusion that this happens due to symathy for the victim of such a brutal crime, not due to gender or other factors.

You are a mysognistic asshole.
At least try to back up your claims with actual (primary) sources and statistics
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - so far you have only posted an oppinonated tertiary source.

[Eleas]

If you can find a more up to date study performed with the same thoroughness on a large enough data-set, please let me know. In the meantime, "sensationalized news stories" are all we have to go on.

Except your little abstract is not a study. It's, in fact, a second-hand account of a paper that is not online, but does have the virtue of being written by the same Men's Right Movement paragon who wrote The Feminist Crusades, was vice president of the Men's Defense Association, and published his abstract in that magazine in the capacity of the editor of said organization's paper.

But that doesn't say anything about him having an agenda, yes?

At the last count, which ended about 1960, the victims of the Nazi Holocaust numbered about eight million of whom six million were Jews.

So far, since the inception of legalized abortion, about thirty million unborn children have been sacrificed to maternal choice. And we are still counting. (ibid, page 21)

(Second-hand quote)

Oh.

Instead, of course, we could look to, you know, actual first-hand sources. Such as a study written by someone who's not a linchpin in a movement claiming that men are oppressed by women, Political Correctness, and a hatred of Traditional Values. You know, unlike Zepezauer.

Eight per cent of reported cases in the sample were designated false by the police. … The authors’ analysis suggests that the designation of false allegations in a number of cases was uncertain according to Home Office counting rules, and if these were excluded, would reduce the proportion of false complaints to three per cent of reported cases.

Oops. That's... quite the discrepancy.

So nah, let's not do that. It's much more intellectually honest to pretend an English teacher with a grudge against liberals must automatically be correct. Of course, lest we forget, evil Feminazism and Political Correctness does have a stranglehold on the debate. We can't forget that shining truth. For proof, just Google the words "feminazi" and watch the enormous outrage against this poisoning-the-well pejorative.

Well, you could watch it. If it had existed within the torrent of sniggering organizations of white middle-class males claiming persecution from Those Fucking Bitches.

[Eleas]

Also interesting is the rank and rampant dishonesty of Zepezauer and his acolytes. He makes broadly sweeping claims about feminism as a whole, unwilling to recognize (and, I suspect, patently unaware) that his ludicrous strawmen criticise not ideology or actual tenets of belief but moral fibre.

In other words, feminists are evil by definition. Just like them goddamn lib'ruls.

[Steve]

What are you smoking? I'd like some, coz I sure as hell said nothing of the sort.

You might want to go back to your initial post in this thread.

There are hundred's of well documented cases of women accusing me of rape

It might have been a typo on your part, but don't blame them for taking what you typed at face value.

[Serafina]

Well, to be fair, that one's a obvious typo - the claim that "hundreds of women" accused him of rape is just ludicrous.

[Stark]

Does my lengthy and disreptuable sexual history affect the result of rape trials? Surely by this logic I'm more likely to rape than fatty virgins? I've even fucked stripper, clearly I cannot be stopped and have no morals!

[Illuminatus Primus]

Ah, what's not to like about Stark? He's a scholar and a gentleman.

I mean this quite seriously.

[Simon_Jester]

What are you smoking? I'd like some, coz I sure as hell said nothing of the sort.

You might want to go back to your initial post in this thread.

There are hundred's of well documented cases of women accusing me of rape

It might have been a typo on your part, but don't blame them for taking what you typed at face value.

Steve, that was... a really fucking obvious typo. I mean, I have no respect for this guy, but I find it impossible to believe that any one man could be the recipient of hundreds of false rape accusations, well documented or otherwise. It is simply not credible that he meant to type "me" and not "men." No one should have entertained the notion even for a moment.

[Steve]

I agree it is obvious, but it's also possible people might see only the "accused" part and not process the claimed quantity.

Alternatively our poster has a delusion of being the incarnation of all men.

Nevertheless that is the kind of embarrassing typo that should be fixed immediately, even if it means a second post correcting oneself.