GOP State Senator blames rape victim.

[PhatMaus]

How do they do so?

You tell the jury:"My accuser has claimed that she was raped X times in the past, but she was proven false, therefore please give less credibility to her testimony" this is part of bringing up "past sexual history" which is banned.

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

Polygraphs aren't 100% percent accurate, which is why civilian criminal defendants(the military has other ideas) aren't tested by them due to the whole reasonable doubt thing, but they are accurate enough to provide a ballpark estimate, even if the total figure goes down from 24% -> 20% it's still too high.

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

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.

OK, I wonder how I can modulate my idea to penetrate your moral outrage shields.

Again, I'm NOT talking about anyone asking for it, simply about the relative credibility of conflicting evidence.

I am NOT talking about cases of clear physical/sexual assault by strangers which some idiots have indeed defended by saying that she deserved to because she was slutty/sexually provocative etc...

If a woman is bruised, bleeding and with vaginal lacerations, it's easy to determine if she's been raped and deserves full sympathy even if she went out at night into the ghetto wearing nothing but her panties straight after banging 20 guys.

If, on the other hand, she's perfectly unharmed and simply says that:"I met the guy, we started talking, he said he wanted sex, I said no, but he raped me", it is MORAL to wonder why she apparently said no this time, while at least 50 other times she said YES!

Come on people, we are talking about judgments that result in life sentences, from what I've read on this forum, people here want to give captured Taliban suspects more benefit of the doubt!

This is my Moral explanation.

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).

DNA tests clear Georgia inmate of rape charges Judge frees him after nearly 25 years in prison spent denying his guilt

Furthermore, military bases hardly represent the typical population - studies regarding them are therefore not applicable to the general population.

Please take the time to actually read the article, this point was covered, they did follow-up civilian studies.

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.

Our society in general still has a lot of remnants of Victorian morality (only the ones convenient to women though) such as Alimony(even when the woman in question has a career and can support herself), default female child custody, not being subject to the draft, men still generally expected to pay the restaurant bill after a date etc...
Anyone who lives in the Western Anglo-Sphere, which I'm pretty damn sure covers the overwhelming majority of the people on this board, has first hand knowledge of these things.

The behavior of the cops during the case described in my previous post shows that the Victorian idea of a woman as a gentle innocent thing that needs to be protected is also alive and well.

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

LOL!

Should have been men not me, sorry.

Is there any way of editing your past posts like in vBulletin based systems? I cant find one.

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.

Good point.

I stumbled onto that website after googling "false rape statistics", I didn't read any further than the rape studies. It was a mistake not read up about the author, i really should have chosen a better link.

However further searches about Charles P McDowell and his report have done nothing to undermine my belief in the veracity of the actual facts of the report as stated in the article.

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.

I've just had time time to read the first few pages and I'm going home now, however a couple of things strike me:
A - they mention how "ethnically diverse" their study areas are. In my experience, in the UK, "ethnically diverse" means "Lots of Muslims" who genuinely do have high rates of sexual abuse + lots of social pressure not let anyone find out about rape(honor killings, etc..)
B - This is a report written by a Labour Party government who have been highly committed to the feminist cause for a long time.(accusation of making Ad hominem attacks coming in 3..2..1.., well for an issue as politicized as this, motivations are worth examining) and I genuinely believe that the Air Force guy had a lot less reasons for making his figures high than these people have for making theirs low.

Aaaaaaanyways, I'm going home now and I'll read that report thoroughly. I'll post an update when I do.

[Steve]

Editing posts is turned off in some forums to prevent shenanigans during debates. Naturally N&P is one of them.

[Anguirus]

Polygraphs aren't 100% percent accurate, which is why civilian criminal defendants(the military has other ideas) aren't tested by them due to the whole reasonable doubt thing, but they are accurate enough to provide a ballpark estimate, even if the total figure goes down from 24% -> 20% it's still too high.

Polygraphs don't detect lies dumbass, they detect stress. Your BS made up percent numbers don't change this. Questioning an alleged rape victim's veracity is likely to be stressful, meaning that you will see a MESS of Type 1 errors.

[Simon_Jester]

How do they do so?

You tell the jury:"My accuser has claimed that she was raped X times in the past, but she was proven false, therefore please give less credibility to her testimony" this is part of bringing up "past sexual history" which is banned.

What evidence beyond your say-so do you have that this actually happens and works?

Polygraphs aren't 100% percent accurate, which is why civilian criminal defendants(the military has other ideas) aren't tested by them due to the whole reasonable doubt thing, but they are accurate enough to provide a ballpark estimate, even if the total figure goes down from 24% -> 20% it's still too high.

What evidence beyond your say-so do you have that polygraphs are reliable enough to be used as even a rough guide to whether someone is lying?

If, on the other hand, she's perfectly unharmed and simply says that:"I met the guy, we started talking, he said he wanted sex, I said no, but he raped me", it is MORAL to wonder why she apparently said no this time, while at least 50 other times she said YES!

She could have a thousand perfectly good and compelling reasons. Maybe she prefers blonds. Maybe he smells bad. Maybe she just isn't interested that night. Maybe he said something rude to her.

So it isn't especially moral to demand evidence that she rarely if ever has sex with men she's only recently met before assuming that she might not have wanted sex with a random person she only recently met. Especially not when this forces her to submit to the humiliation of endless allegations about her sex life and having it dragged in front of a court... which is a great way to deter women from making rape charges, because it's so easy for the defense to make any woman look like a slut.

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).

DNA tests clear Georgia inmate of rape charges Judge frees him after nearly 25 years in prison spent denying his guiltWas the evidence obtained years after the fact, or months?

Our society in general still has a lot of remnants of Victorian morality (only the ones convenient to women though) such as Alimony(even when the woman in question has a career and can support herself), default female child custody, not being subject to the draft, men still generally expected to pay the restaurant bill after a date etc...
Anyone who lives in the Western Anglo-Sphere, which I'm pretty damn sure covers the overwhelming majority of the people on this board, has first hand knowledge of these things.

I, for one, am not complaining.

LOL!
Should have been men not me, sorry.
Is there any way of editing your past posts like in vBulletin based systems? I cant find one.

We don't let people do it because it lets them sneak around and change their arguments to make other people look bad.

[PhatMaus]

I've just finished cleaning the oven after a bit of an accident with the dinner and sat down to read that report and post a thought out reply to your comments when I realized what time it is and that I plan to wake up early to catch the world cup opening ceremony tomorrow.

I've also looked at the sheer amount of outrage generated on this post and I've realized that it's highly unlikely that I will persuade anyone.

Therefore I'm giving up. It takes too much time to properly reply to arguments , trawl for good links, read the links posted thoroughly etc.. when my message has been about as well received as a gay pride parade outside a Westbro Baptist Church. Before I mostly visited this board to read fanfics and this was one of the few times I looked at the news board and was motivated enough to register to reply to something I felt strongly about.

I should have guaged the political leanings of this board before I jumped in. Sorry for disturbing the peace of the forum.

Peace.

Incorrigible Cro-Magon signing off.(P.S. thanks for the Cro-Magon bit by the way, I'm thinking of making it my nick on another forum)

[Oskuro]

So signing off after implying that we're a bunch of bigoted assholes? Classy. But not as classy as this bit:

If, on the other hand, she's perfectly unharmed and simply says that:"I met the guy, we started talking, he said he wanted sex, I said no, but he raped me", it is MORAL to wonder why she apparently said no this time, while at least 50 other times she said YES!

So, according to you, if, say, your wife one night says "NO" after having previously said "YES" throughout many years of marriage, there's something wrong in that, and she can't certainly be taken seriously when she accuses you of rape, right?

You keep failing to realize that the problem here is not about what you are saying (several people have agreed that false rape accussations do indeed happen), but in how you say it. On one side you have failed to properly support your arguments, and on the other, you show a great deal of comptempt for the notion that a woman can freely choose not to let anyone in her vagina she doesn't want to.

Re-read that quote of yours from before. Doesn't it sound like you're implying that a woman who has had sex with 50 men should be questioned when she says NO to the 51st guy? Because that is what your words imply. I'll go back to a previous example I used, if you happen to meet Jenna Jameson (google her NSFW work) on a bar, have a few drinks, go back to her home, yet she suddenly decides she doesn't want to have sex with you, forcing her would still be rape, and claiming that her (lengthy) previous sexual experience somehow destroys her credibility makes you into a woman-bashing retarded asshole.

Heck, a girl could pretty much say NO when you're already pumping inside her. What pisses me off is that your arguments support the disgusting mindset of women not having as much of a right to say no to sex as they have.

But, of course, I'm just a bigot whose "political leanings" (please, elaborate on that) lead me to such outrageous attitudes as attempting to show you why your comments are misogynistic even if you didn't consciously meant them to be.

[SirNitram]

Good riddance. 5 posts from this peice of donkey shit and we know he's beyond redemption. I need less rapist apologists in my life. Keeps my stress level managable. (Several of my close friends were raped. I have a primitive 'Rescue damsel' instinct. I keep it down to a dull roar most of the time, but these scum make me fully ready to fight a guy twice my weight.)

[Serafina]

Okay, let me explain the moral outrage (which is justified):

Your main argument seems to boil down to:
"If a woman made false accusations of rape previously, it should be admissable in court" and "rape trials can be unfair towards the accused party, which is bad".
I think no one is disputing that.

Then why are we so outraged? It's really quite simple:
You keep claiming that being sexually active casts a shadow of doubt on a rape claim.
This is blatantly mysognistic and wrong. I asked you to justify this and give statistics, and you blatantly refused to do so.
Being sexually active doesn't make a woman more likely to lie. Being sexually active doesn't mitigate her rights to say no.
You are openly supporting/agreeing with people who say '"oh, look at her - she clearly wanted it".
That's why i am calling you - concession or not - a mysognistic asshole. Honestly retract that specific claim and explain why you made it in the first place.

[Eleas]

Polygraphs aren't 100% percent accurate, which is why civilian criminal defendants(the military has other ideas) aren't tested by them due to the whole reasonable doubt thing, but they are accurate enough to provide a ballpark estimate, even if the total figure goes down from 24% -> 20% it's still too high.

A flat-out lie. Polygraphs measure stress levels. I can tell you from firsthand fucking experience that when you've been raped, your stress levels ain't gonna be remotely suitable for measurement. Particularly not when you've been questioned about something you know, deep down, must have been your own fault for being... well, for having been raped in the first place.

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

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.

OK, I wonder how I can modulate my idea to penetrate your moral outrage shields.

Fuck you, little child. Serafina, just like myself, reacted to the things you wrote. The primary point of contention (the fact that you're echoing all the old chestnuts commonly used to ask the question "what did she do to deserve being raped" in court), and that you do so without bothering to justify your argument, is the main objection. That your own words paint you as a twat of the highest order is a secondary issue at best.

Again, I'm NOT talking about anyone asking for it, simply about the relative credibility of conflicting evidence.

I am NOT talking about cases of clear physical/sexual assault by strangers which some idiots have indeed defended by saying that she deserved to because she was slutty/sexually provocative etc...

If a woman is bruised, bleeding and with vaginal lacerations, it's easy to determine if she's been raped and deserves full sympathy even if she went out at night into the ghetto wearing nothing but her panties straight after banging 20 guys.

As people with actual knowledge of the subject matter know, violent rapes of this kind are proportionally few. It is, however, a necessary part of the mythos to imply that aggravated assault is necessary for it to be rape, and I'm gratified that you choose to follow form.

If, on the other hand, she's perfectly unharmed and simply says that:"I met the guy, we started talking, he said he wanted sex, I said no, but he raped me", it is MORAL to wonder why she apparently said no this time, while at least 50 other times she said YES!

It is "moral" in the sense of being morally reprehensible. The issue at hand is not "why did she say no, when she's said yes before". The issue is, did she say no, and did he go on regardless?

This is why a rape charge is a thorny problem. It is not a reason to treat that whole pesky evidence criterion as an optional accessory. You want to change the question from "did they have sex and did she consent?" to "did she lie?" The fact that this is your primary motivation is both obvious and telling; no other criminal charge has this distinction. When someone is accused of economic crime, the first question is not "does the accuser lie?", because that is putting the horse before the cart.

Come on people, we are talking about judgments that result in life sentences, from what I've read on this forum, people here want to give captured Taliban suspects more benefit of the doubt!

Actually, we're not talking about life-long sentences.

Prison sentences for rape are not uniform. A study made by the U.S. Department of Justice of prison releases in 1992, involving about 80 percent of the prison population, found that the average sentence for convicted rapists was 11.8 years, while the actual time served was 5.4 years. This follows the typical pattern for violent crimes in the US, where those convicted typically serve no more than half of their sentence [1].

I know this is Wikipedia, but in all honesty, indepth sourcing is too good for this shithead as it is.

This is my Moral explanation.

But of course it is.

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).

DNA tests clear Georgia inmate of rape charges Judge frees him after nearly 25 years in prison spent denying his guilt

...proving nothing about Serafina's statement was inherently false. DNA must have been collected during the trial, unless we're talking about an outlier situation or actual conception.

Please take the time to actually read the article, this point was covered, they did follow-up civilian studies.

What a pity neither this primary study or a followup study can be found, but must be recounted to us by a non-scientist whose only claim to notoriety is an English degree and Family Values.

Our society in general still has a lot of remnants of Victorian morality (only the ones convenient to women though) such as Alimony(even when the woman in question has a career and can support herself), default female child custody, not being subject to the draft, men still generally expected to pay the restaurant bill after a date etc...

You're quite the little bitch, aren't you? The idea of "our society" is, on the face of it, ludicrous. If you're annoyed with the puritanical bullshit of the US, say so, but don't apply that to reasonable countries. All of the constructs you're talking about serve to assign women a traditional place and role in society. Just like Victorian morality, in fact, which was appropriate considering it was one of the most misogynistic and repressive eras in history. Of course, I say that as someone who's studied the subject, so it may be a different point of view.

Anyone who lives in the Western Anglo-Sphere, which I'm pretty damn sure covers the overwhelming majority of the people on this board, has first hand knowledge of these things.

Of the things I spoke, certainly. Any SDnetter within this sphere and above age 14 also has first-hand knowledge of growing up past the age when they were so goddamn stupid as to interpret pats on the head as synonymous with power.

The behavior of the cops during the case described in my previous post shows that the Victorian idea of a woman as a gentle innocent thing that needs to be protected is also alive and well.

The Victorian idea of a woman as being a gentle innocent thing was conditional, you know. After she had been fucked the first time, you know what that meant? Can you tell me about the concept of a "fallen woman"? Shit, this was in an age where walking around outside with a visible pregnancy was abhorrent because the almighty Motherhood role didn't apply until after you'd given birth, and thus couldn't wash away the stain of this poor gentle creature actually having had sex.

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.

Good point.

I stumbled onto that website after googling "false rape statistics", I didn't read any further than the rape studies. It was a mistake not read up about the author, i really should have chosen a better link.

However further searches about Charles P McDowell and his report have done nothing to undermine my belief in the veracity of the actual facts of the report as stated in the article.

...and which searches would that be? It's not as if McDowell's study is referenced in any consistent fashion online, after all.

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.

I've just had time time to read the first few pages and I'm going home now, however a couple of things strike me:
A - they mention how "ethnically diverse" their study areas are. In my experience, in the UK, "ethnically diverse" means "Lots of Muslims" who genuinely do have high rates of sexual abuse + lots of social pressure not let anyone find out about rape(honor killings, etc..)

Oh, this is just too precious. Let's break down the idiocy, shall we?

1. "In my experience" doesn't mean shit, little one. You have already shown yourself inadequate to the task of applying critical thought on this subject, and so your experience can't be trusted.
2. In other words, you're giving the equation "Ethnically Diverse = Lots of Muslims" as an explanation for a 20% disparity in probable rape statistics. On the grounds of your own experience and interpretation of ethnic diversity, no less.

So, let's see. You feel that since "ethnically diverse" means Muslim, these areas are predominantly Muslim. O-kay. Therefore, you seem to think, said Muslims are raping all the time. Therefore, Muslim women (and presumable other women, but surely there are few other women who would dare come close to these ghettos?) are being raped. Therefore, the incidence of false rape is lower in said ghettos, because if there's anything that would engender honesty, veracity and truthful reporting of fact, it's fear for your life and unfamiliarity with the English language.

But I can see it's okay. After all, you're not conservative when compared to your friends. Therefore, you obviously couldn't be nearly so racist, misogynistic and flat-out stupid as you seem to be in this thread. Right?

B - This is a report written by a Labour Party government who have been highly committed to the feminist cause for a long time.(accusation of making Ad hominem attacks coming in 3..2..1.., well for an issue as politicized as this, motivations are worth examining) and I genuinely believe that the Air Force guy had a lot less reasons for making his figures high than these people have for making theirs low.

Of course, back in what we like to call "reality," there is little in the way of the blatant bias this would demand from the Labour party.

In point of fact, there is no real reason to infer as you do that Home Office Research is lying, except the real reason: they don't say what you like them to say, and that must mean they've been infiltrated by Those Fucking Dykes. No, the simple fact is that "the Air Force guy" is an old study, with uncertain methodology and nonexistent reference, and represents a tremendous statistical outlier as compared to any reputable and recent study.

Meanwhile, recent studies show the incidence of false rape claims to be on the high end of the spectrum of fabricated charges, which is just what one would expect from a charge that can be ambiguous. Your own model demands that we introduce extraneous terms into the equation, these terms being "those bitches are keeping us down" and "cock teasers should get what's coming to them", in order to demonstrate how dire the situation is and how deeply the conspiracy has sunk its root into the purity of our Culture.

And the Muslims, of course. Fucking everywhere.

Aaaaaaanyways, I'm going home now and I'll read that report thoroughly. I'll post an update when I do.

Don't forget to flush.

[Anguirus]

Incorrigible Cro-Magon signing off.(P.S. thanks for the Cro-Magon bit by the way, I'm thinking of making it my nick on another forum)

You can't even spell it right.

[Drone]

Heck, a girl could pretty much say NO when you're already pumping inside her. What pisses me off is that your arguments support the disgusting mindset of women not having as much of a right to say no to sex as they have.

Just a small point, unless it's changed, once penetration happens voluntarily, if they change their mind it's considered too late. You don't HAVE to stop, legally you wouldn't be raping them. You're still an asshole if you keep going, but that's something else.

[Oskuro]

Bullshit. I don't care for the legal details here, if a girl starts asking for the man to stop, or even screaming or crying or trying to push the man off it is, in my eyes, as much of a rape as if she didn't want to do it in the first place. Since when does penetration transfer ownership of the vagina to the man?

[Serafina]

Heck, a girl could pretty much say NO when you're already pumping inside her. What pisses me off is that your arguments support the disgusting mindset of women not having as much of a right to say no to sex as they have.

Just a small point, unless it's changed, once penetration happens voluntarily, if they change their mind it's considered too late. You don't HAVE to stop, legally you wouldn't be raping them. You're still an asshole if you keep going, but that's something else.

Cite the laws, then.

Even if it WAS like that, it's certainly a stupid, disgusting law. Because that would still be rape.
Besides, that would imply that if no penetration occurs, it is not rape.

[Drone]

Heck, a girl could pretty much say NO when you're already pumping inside her. What pisses me off is that your arguments support the disgusting mindset of women not having as much of a right to say no to sex as they have.

Just a small point, unless it's changed, once penetration happens voluntarily, if they change their mind it's considered too late. You don't HAVE to stop, legally you wouldn't be raping them. You're still an asshole if you keep going, but that's something else.

Cite the laws, then.

Even if it WAS like that, it's certainly a stupid, disgusting law. Because that would still be rape.
Besides, that would imply that if no penetration occurs, it is not rape.

Maryland Courts Ruled that mid act change of consent wasn't rape 4 years ago. I'm not saying it's right, it is what it is, just that legally by that point it's not rape.

[Serafina]

Thanks for the link...and wow, that's messed up. Honestly, what kind of moron would rule that way?

[Terralthra]

Heck, a girl could pretty much say NO when you're already pumping inside her. What pisses me off is that your arguments support the disgusting mindset of women not having as much of a right to say no to sex as they have.

Just a small point, unless it's changed, once penetration happens voluntarily, if they change their mind it's considered too late. You don't HAVE to stop, legally you wouldn't be raping them. You're still an asshole if you keep going, but that's something else.

Cite the laws, then.

Even if it WAS like that, it's certainly a stupid, disgusting law. Because that would still be rape.
Besides, that would imply that if no penetration occurs, it is not rape.

Legally speaking, that's correct. Forced sexual contact which does not involve penetration, and in some states intercourse, is not, legally speaking, rape. It's sexual assault, sexual molestation, etc., but it isn't rape. Can you come up with a better definition that isn't subject to ridiculous edge cases?

[Serafina]

No - you are, of course, right that these cases are not rape.
They migh be the pschological equivalent, but i understand the need for a distinction.