This week, on "My Skin Curdles, My Blood Crawls"...

[flewellyn]

I posted this on this blog, discussing the 17 year old Oregon girl who, after accusing her boyfriend and two of his friends of raping her, was convicted of filing a false police report; the apparent reasoning by the judge was that, since the prosecution couldn't find enough evidence that the rape had taken place, she was obviously lying. Several commenters on the blog proceeded to do the usual misogynist bashing of women, feminism, and the notion that rape actually happens all that often, and went off accusing women of lying about rape as often as 25% of the time.

Several other people, of course, took them to task for their nonsense, and cited actual statistics showing that the number of rape reports which turn out to be falsified is around 1.6%; nonetheless, I felt compelled to respond, thus:

---

Aside from the statistics cited above showing that women lie about rape charges in as few as 1.6% of reports, there is a simple, logical reason why assuming that women will lie about rape just doesn't make sense.

Look at what happens to a woman who accuses a man of raping her. Her name is dragged through the mud, her sexual history is questioned, she is slandered with all sorts of vile names by the defendant's supporters, lawyers, and by men of society at large. She is told that it was her fault, that she shouldn't have been doing whatever she was doing when her attacker raped her. She is accused of making it all up, of lying to be vengeful or (if the rapist is rich, such as Kobe Bryant) of seeking money. She faces long odds of getting a conviction; in Oregon, apparently 10% of reported rapes result in a conviction. Rape being one of the most underreported crimes there is, the real numbers are surely much higher.

She receives all kinds of "advice" from people which can be summed up as "don't have a social life, don't ever drink, don't go out of your house, and if you still get raped, it's still your fault". Her family and friends may well abandon her, or even turn against her. Her religious community may well turn their backs on her, as well.

Given all of this, what sort of logical reason would there be for women to lie about being raped? The 1.6% who apparently do, I would surmise, are probably mentally ill; otherwise, anyone sane would realize that accusing a man of rape is extremely difficult and has all kinds of social and psychological penalties, whether he is convicted or not. The man accused, or even convicted, of rape has many allies in society, many people trying to excuse what he did, or blame it all on the woman. Look at how many people today still think Desiree Washington was just a golddigger, even after Mike Tyson was, in fact, convicted.

Quite simply, sane people do not lie if there is no benefit to them in doing so. And the simple fact is, lying about rape has no benefit for women. So, given these facts...who would benefit from lying about rape? If it's not women, then who?

Comments

[fantom07.livejournal.com]

I'm just saying that it's a situation in which there can be blame and fault on both sides, and both sides will get a share of what's going on. Not all cases of rape are publicised, not all women will get the attention as high profile cases, but no matter what - falsy accusused or rightly - the rape charge will be with the man forever, and that can have serious, life destorying results.

My whole point, though, is that rape is not as simple as "he's guilty, she's not" in every case.

[cherrypep.livejournal.com]

*shrug* True. But "and yet men get all of the blame"? :)

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

My whole point, though, is that rape is not as simple as "he's guilty, she's not" in every case.

Yeah it is. If a man has sex with a woman, and she doesn't say yes or otherwise clearly signal consent, it's rape. He's guilty, she's not. End of story.

The only way I can see any ambiguity is if she says yes, they have sex, and only after the fact does she change her mind. The only time she can't change her mind is after the act is completed. If she says "stop" or "no" halfway through, and he doesn't stop, it's rape. He's guilty, she's not.

If they have sex, she said yes, and all, and only afterwards does she decide she should have said no...well, that is not rape. It's unfortunate, but it's not rape. However, I only know of one case where this happened, and the woman tried to bring rape charges...and, like I said below, she recanted after the prosecutors started asking too many questions.

[fantom07.livejournal.com]

But here's the thing - what if he doesn't hear her? What if she thought she said stop but really didn't? People, while drunk, have bad memories. If he's been drinking, he may not be able to comprehend. What it comes down to is a VERY BAD SITUATION in which it's one word against another.

I feel bad for any judge in this situation. It's hard to determine what really happened. I'm not saying every case is like this, but there are cases like this that happen.

*shrugs* Some situations really aren't as black and white as we want them to be.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

If he genuinely thought she consented, and she couldn't remember whether she said no or not...I would not want to be a judge in that situation either. I would have to look at the man's record; were there any other accusations made against him? Does he have a history of sexually harrassing women? How does he behave in the courtroom, and what kind of attitude does he display towards the woman?

The legal standard for consent in common law countries, such as the US and UK, generally holds that intoxication makes a person unable to legally consent. I think this should work both ways: if a perpetrator is drunk, he should be held incompetent to ask.

Otherwise, what we have is a situation where the man's drinking makes him less responsible, but the woman's drinking makes her more responsible.

[fantom07.livejournal.com]

aaaah, but then we make it crime to have sex if there has been any form of mood/descion altering substance, and that's starting to take away from our civil liberties.

What it comes down to is that it's a situation that sucks for all parties involved.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Okay, then we go the other way: being intoxicated is not held to enter into it at all.

It sucks for all parties involved, but if one of the parties is held to a different standard than the other, there is a serious problem.

[fantom07.livejournal.com]

If we outlaw sex, only the outlaws will have sex!!!

No wait...that's not right...

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Hey, now. I'm all in favor of sex. I just want it to be consensual sex.

This, by the way, is why I kept asking "may I do this?" until you finally told me to shut up. :-)

[fantom07.livejournal.com]

And see, I find that sad that we can't trust anybody. No means no, but yes means "well, maybe not"? See, as much as men need to take the responsibility to ask, women need to take the responsiblity to commincate just as well.

And yes - sometimes comminicating means a spary with mace.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Sure, we all need to communicate. This is not me saying that we shouldn't.

But again, I gotta point out that most rape charges do not result in conviction. It varies by state, but I think Oregon was something like 10%. This is also where the 2% of false rape charges thing came from.

There's a serious problem there.

[fantom07.livejournal.com]

I think there are serious problems all over the board when it comes to rape - but I don't buy the conspiracy theories that say it's becase judges are biased, or that the police don't care, or any of that. I think everything regaurding rape needs to be worked over, but given the subject, it will never be an easy trial and it will never be easy for anybody involved.

HUNNNNH?!

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Conspiracy theories? You need to do some serious research. Police in various jurisdictions have out-and-out STATED that they do not, generally, believe women who try to report rapes. Judges, and lawyers, have pulled shit like introducing the woman's past sexual history as "evidence" to intimidate her.

ginmar has a whole host of links in her user info. I think you'd do well to read them. Conspiracy theories my ass.

Re: HUNNNNH?!

[fantom07.livejournal.com]

*sighs* Once again - thanks for assuming I don't know what I'm talking about. It's such an endering quality.

Re: HUNNNNH?!

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, Meg, but you're proving that you don't know what you're talking about.

I really don't want to hurt your feelings, but truthfully, you gotta start reading.

Re: HUNNNNH?!

[fantom07.livejournal.com]

What I love, though, is that you can find statistical, credible sources that say things like the quality of living has gone down because of Roe Vs. Wade. I love that you can find sources that say that jews control all of the media in the world. I love that you can find all these sources, CREDIBLE SOURCES on the internet proving just about anything you want to.

Doesn't mean all of them are real. Doesn't mean all of them are right.

Re: HUNNNNH?!

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

You can find sources, yes. Not credible ones.

Credible has a specific meaning, when talking about studies and sources. Credible means that you can see where and how they got their data. Credible means that they have credentials worth something. Credible means that the study was methodologically sound, and did not overreach in its conclusions.

Yes, yes, many people like to say "lies, damned lies, and statistics", but the fact is, if you try to lie with statistics, knowledable people who know how statistics work will catch you on it. This is why The Bell Curve, for instance, is not credible: statisticians and social scientists who read it carefully found the methodological flaws, source biases, and outright fabrications easily enough. The book was only convincing to people who were predisposed to accepting its conclusions anyway.

Similar with Erich von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods?. He admitted, after being called on it, to falsifying evidence for his book. Only kooks take it seriously.

Yes, anyone can put anything on the internet. But with some reasonably careful scholarship, it's quite possible to tell the grain from the chaff. And in some cases, it doesn't even take much in the way of careful scholarship.

[valkyriekaren.livejournal.com]

We've actually just had a case like that over here which went to court. The woman was drunk at an event and a security officer took her home. He claims that she seduced him on the way home and consented to sex; she claimed she was raped, but then later said she'd been so drunk that she couldn't remember whether she said yes or not. The case was thrown out of court, understandably.

The man in question was irresponsible, and abused her trust (he was a security officer told to look after her, and had no business having sex with her even if it was consensual while he was supposed to be working), but was he a rapist?

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Yes, I read about that case.

Morally, I would answer your question: yes. I think he was a rapist. That kind of abuse of trust, abuse of boundaries, is central to the act of rape.

Legally, I would say: yes. Remember, in common law jurisdictions, someone who is intoxicated is legally incapable of consent. If she was intoxicated enough that she could not remember whether or not she was raped, then I would hold that she was not competent to consent at the time, and therefor was raped.

If there were other witnesses who clearly saw her initiate the sex, then I might be able to consider that reasonable doubt. But there were no other witnesses, and thus I would conclude that doubting her consent is not reasonable; she was too drunk to consent.

[achanchinou.livejournal.com]

rape is not as simple as "he's guilty, she's not"

Men can be raped too.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

I should have figured someone would say this. I'm distressed that it would be you, though.

Men can be raped too, yes. This is rare. And in most such cases, the perpetrator is also a man.

Last I checked the stats, male rape accounted for around 3-5% of rape cases. Rape is predominantly male on female, so that is where I focus my attention.

[achanchinou.livejournal.com]

Let me clarify for others too, that I said that not to distract, but as a (potentially misunderstanding) response to the reference to the woman instigating things previously. I have seen cases before where the guy was blamed for raping the woman, when in fact it was the other way around and HE was the one who went to jail for raping her, when it fact it was he who had been raped.

Very unfair all around in that case.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Yes, yes it was. I hope he was able to clear his name.

Let me clarify, also, that I didn't assume you were trying to distract from the issue. It's just that, most of the time when someone says "men can be raped, too", they're trying to focus the discussion away from female victims.

I know you weren't trying to do that. I was just afraid I would get someone who was.

[gruuk.livejournal.com]

You do realize that male rape is grossly under-reported? Go check here for more information; one disturbing quote: "Rape crisis counselors estimate that while only one in 50 raped women report the crime to the police, the rates of under-reporting among men are even higher (Brochman, 1991)."

A rape victim is a rape victim, regardless of gender. The fact that there are far less resources of support for male victims is a real problem, one that can be fixed if people stopped pretending it was just a small issue. How about we just try to help ALL rape victims, instead of shunning the ones who happen to have a Y chromosome?

As to the initial subject, neither I or you were in court and that entry you linked to is biased (as the author freely admits). Even the article on the subject does not give us the precise words the judge used to explain his decision, just a general description, whereas court transcripts would; since we don't have those, all we have is this article. Perhaps her testimony was indeed very inconsistent to the judge. Yes, she didn't admit to lying, but that doesn't mean she was being truthful either; if most of the evidence and testimonies do not support her claim or even contradicts it, concluding that she gave false testimony is fairly logical. Was it the right decision? I have no clue, since that article and blog entry just aren't enough for me to give you an answer.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

I didn't say anything about shunning male rape victims, Gruuk.

What I did say is, often in discussions about rape, male rape victims are brought up as a distraction technique.

It is entirely true that male rape victims don't have access to the same kinds of support services that exist for female rape victims. So, why aren't men creating them?

As for the court case...well, it may be one thing to say "her testimony is rather inconsistent, therefor we have reasonable doubt about the charge". But to turn around and not only charge, but convict, this girl of false reporting...can that be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? There are many many many cases where a woman brings charges, and there isn't enough evidence to convict. Shall we conclude then that all of those women were also lying, and charge them with false reporting?

We can't do that, for the simple reason that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If there is not enough evidence to convict the man charged with rape, that does not logically require that we conclude the woman was lying. That's like trying to say "If A then B, therefor if B then A". That doesn't work.

In this specific case, the judge's main reason for disbelieving the girl who brought the charges was that she "didn't act traumatized". He based this notion primarily on the testimony of two very unreliable witnesses, and had no corroboration from (for instance) an actual psychologist who specialized in trauma. Even without having the transcript, I can therefor conclude that he was in error.