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

[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.