Yeah, and you'd be absolutely right, this would bear as much discussion as it does here, if only there was a significant number of women running around accusing men of rape falsely. BUT THERE AREN'T. This idea that false rape accusations can and do, routinely completely ruin a man's life are pretty thoroughly unsubstantiated, and yet you can't even say the sentence "the rate at which women experience rape is too high" without someone turning the conversation around and making it about all the imagined multitudes of men who've had their lives and careers ruined by capricious women accusing them unfairly of rape. It's really infuriating. False rape accusations are not remotely the problem at issue here. Not when compared with ACTUAL RAPE.

Really. False rape accusations almost never happen. I can think of several high profile cases where it turned out the "victim" was nothing of the sort.

http://www.cotwa.info/ has a lot to say about false rape accusations and shows just how damaging they are to the accused even when exonerated.

So we should suspend our justice system for this one crime? I'm not saying there are hordes of false rape accusations, just that the cases still need to be proven like any other crime. Think about it this way. Virtually everyone arrested for a drug crime is guilty. The cops found meth in their pocket or whatever. The state still has to go through the process of proving it in court, or would if there was no plea bargain. All I'm saying is that someone accused of rape is innocent until proven guilty, which shouldn't be a controversial position to hold. If he actually did it there should be plenty of evidence.

Oh for.... Yes. Really false rape accusations are extremely rare. That's exactly true. What you mean is you can think of several high profile cases where it turned out the "victim" wasn't considered important, her point of view was dismissed and her ordeal was systematically trivialized. Just because someone was exonerated legally doesn't mean they didn't do it! The justice system is pretty fucked up where rape is concerned too.

Okay, they're rare. But they happen. So we should find the evidence in the case and deal with it like any crime. Namely, lock up the guilty scumbags and don't lock up the innocent.

@Mafia - read the website and see how many *current* accusations that are unsubstantiated (current being in the last year or two) are out there then think about that over the last decade or more. It is more significant than *you* give it credit for.

The Duke LaCrosse case - http://today.duke.edu/showcase/lacrosseincident/
Dominique Strauss-Kahn

These are just two high-profile cases from recent history. And now George Zimmerman is being accused of it to taint his attempt at defending himself. The woman comes forward 7 years after it happens and we are just supposed to believe she decided now was the time and it has nothing to do with his being on trial for murder? Give me a break.

False rape accusations can and do happen on a regular basis. Until the stigma and presumption of guilt that comes with any accusation is ended, I have no pity on the "victims" who make these facetious claims or on those who belittle the fact that they occur as if they were as rare as weapons grade plutonium.

@ Invictus... I don't recall saying that rape accusations should be treated differently than other crimes. I think you must have misunderstood something I wrote. Please indicate to me where I said that justice and the presumption of innocence, or at least not guilt should be suspended in cases of rape. Cause I don't recall saying that.

The fact is though, as it stands rape isn't treated like other crimes. Police are remarkably reluctant to investigate claims of rape, and even when they do, it becomes an EXTREMELY unpleasant process for the victim. And if the case is investigated and goes to court, suddenly the victims personal life, clothing choices, sex life, and everything else are all admissible evidence. In a robbery case, if the homeowner says "Yes, that's him, that's the guy who broke into my house!" The court takes that testimony more or less at face value. It doesn't turn around and say "Are you sure you didn't invite him in. He says you did. How many people do you normally invite into your house?"

There is post... somewhere, that I've seen multiple places about why rape jokes aren't okay - and it contains some startling information. The target audience is men, so I will post it here. Apologies if this has already been linked here:

----------------

TO ALL THOSE MEN WHO DON'T THINK THE RAPE JOKES ARE A PROBLEM

This post in particular is addressed to men, not because women don’t rape and women don’t make/laugh at rape jokes and not because men can’t be raped, but because, by nature of the existing gender disparity, men are in a unique position to be taken seriously when they raise objections to casual language and humor regarding rape. Men are also in a unique position to prove to rapists and douchebags that not all men rape or take rape lightly by being able to embody living proof of that fact.

I get it—you’re a decent guy. I can even believe it. You’ve never raped anybody. You would NEVER rape anybody. You’re upset that all these feminists are trying to accuse you of doing something, or connect you to doing something, that, as far as you’re concerned, you’ve never done and would never condone.

And they’ve told you about triggers, and PTSD, and how one in six women is a survivor, and you get it. You do. But you can’t let every time someone gets all upset get in the way of you having a good time, right? Especially when it doesn’t *mean anything*. Rape jokes have never made YOU go out and rape someone. They never would; they never could. You just don’t see how it matters.

I’m going to tell you how it *does* matter. And I tell you this because I genuinely believe you mean it when you say you don’t want to hurt anybody, and that it’s important to you to do your best to be a decent and good person, and that you don’t see the harm. And I genuinely believe you when you say you would never associate with a rapist and you think rape really is a very bad thing.

Here is why I refuse to take rape jokes sitting down…

Because 6% of college-aged men, *slightly over 1 in 20*, will *admit* to raping someone in anonymous surveys, as long as the word “rape” isn’t used in the description of the act—and that’s the conservative estimate. Other sources double that number (http://www2.binghamton.edu/counseling/documents/RAPE_FACT_SHEET1.pdf).

A lot of people accuse feminists of thinking that all men are rapists. That’s not true. But do you know who think all men are rapists?

Rapists do.

They really do. In psychological study, the profiling, the studies, it comes out again and again.

Virtually all rapists genuinely believe that *all men rape*, and other men just keep it hushed up better. And more, these people who really are rapists are constantly *reaffirmed* in their belief about the rest of mankind being rapists like them *by things like rape jokes*, that *dismiss and normalize the idea of rape*.

If one in twenty guys (or more) is a real and true *rapist*, and you have any amount of social activity with other guys like yourself, then it is almost a statistical certainty that one time hanging out with friends and their friends, playing Halo with a bunch of guys online, in a WoW guild, in a pick-up game of basketball, at a bar, or elsewhere, *you were talking to a rapist*. Not your fault. You can’t tell a rapist apart any better than anyone else can. It’s not like they announce themselves.

But, here’s the thing. It’s very likely that in some of these interactions with these guys, at some point or another, someone told a rape joke. You, decent guy that you are, understood that they didn’t *mean* it, and it was just a joke. And so you laughed.

Or maybe you didn’t laugh. Maybe it just wasn’t a very funny joke. So maybe you just didn’t say anything at all.

And, decent guy who would never condone rape, who would step in and stop rape if he saw it, who understands that rape is awful and wrong and bad, when you laughed? When you were silent?

That rapist who was in the group with you, that rapist *thought that you were on his side*. That rapist *knew* that you were a rapist like him. And he felt validated, and he felt he was among his comrades.

You. The rapist’s comrade.

And if that doesn’t make you feel sick to your stomach, if that doesn’t make you want to throw up, if that doesn’t disturb you or bother you or make you feel like maybe you should at least *consider* not participating in that kind of humor anymore, not abiding it in your presence, not greeting it with silence…

Well, maybe you aren’t as opposed to rapists as you claim.

——————————————————-
Note: A quick and simple rule for language and behavior if you want to be a decent person: Ask yourself, who is more likely to be made to feel comfortable around me based on whatever I’m about to say/do? Rape survivors? Or rapists? Who is more likely to be made to feel uncomfortable? If you’re doing something that is more likely to make rapists feel comfortable and/or rape survivors feel uncomfortable, then don’t do it!

George Zimmerman shot a 12 year old in cold blood. His "attempt at defending himself" can't get any more tainted than it already is.

@Mafia - if you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty, then we have nothing further to discuss and this conversation is over.

Why doesn't Treyvon Martin get the same treatment Draug? Why is George Zimmerman innocent until proven guilty, but Martin is already known to have attacked Zimmerman until proven otherwise? Bullshit.

A court of law has to treat Zimmerman as though he is guilty until proven otherwise. As a person outside of that, I am not required to defend Zimmerman's honour to the death, until a court of law decides otherwise, and when a ton of witnesses say what they've said about the case, I'm inclined to believe them about Zimmerman shooting Martin.

"And if the case is investigated and goes to court, suddenly the victims personal life, clothing choices, sex life, and everything else are all admissible evidence. In a robbery case, if the homeowner says "Yes, that's him, that's the guy who broke into my house!" The court takes that testimony more or less at face value. It doesn't turn around and say "Are you sure you didn't invite him in. He says you did. How many people do you normally invite into your house?""

Well, that's the nature of the crime. How else can you prove the rape happened if information like that doesn't get out?

"George Zimmerman shot a 12 year old in cold blood. His "attempt at defending himself" can't get any more tainted than it already is. "

I guess you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty. Glad you aren't on that jury. Way to have a fucking open mind and look at *all* the evidence. First - Trayvon Martin was 17 (not 12, dipshit). He was dressed and acting suspiciously, like he was casing the *gated* community he was trespassing on cutting through it "walking home". He had no business being in the *gated* community.

The media has used those 5 year old pictures to make him look all innocent. But he was under suspension for marijuana. Not so innocent there, is it? Suddnely alters the picture entirely of this 12 year old kid taking a short cut home with his bag of Skittles versus this 17 year old pot head casing the neighborhood he planned to rob to get his next bag of weed.

"A court of law has to treat Zimmerman as though he is guilty until proven otherwise"

Um, no they don't. He doesn't have to prove he isn't guilty and the court of law is obligated to assume his innocence. He has to be rpoven guilty not assumed he is guilty. This isn't China for Christ's sake.

Meta-hijack engaged.

"George Zimmerman shot a 12 year old in cold blood. His "attempt at defending himself" can't get any more tainted than it already is."

Trayvon was 17. If you don't even know that I don't think your opinion on the case matters very much.

If there's evidence that Zimmerman's actions aren't covered by the stand-your-ground law then he should go to prison. If there isn't he shouldn't. Simple.

"A court of law has to treat Zimmerman as though he is INNOCENT until proven otherwise." Mistake, sorry about that.

Ugh! What, OK. So know we know that Trayvon Martin was guilty, not only of attacking George Zimmerman, but also of casing a neighbourhood that he was going to rob. We already know he was guilty of a crime he was allegedly PLANNING TO COMMIT. Hahahahahaha presumption of innocence my ass.

Start a new thread for this, you goons.

@Mafia - Justification for further investigation. I'm not saying he was guilty, but these are possible motives and the defense of Zimmerman has every right to bring them up. But what is scarier is the fact that you think (or thought) Martin was 12 years old. He was guilty of marijuana posession and was suspended from school for it. He was guilty of trespassing in a gated community or he wouldn't have been there and gotten shot. These are incontestable guilts. Zimmerman, however, commited an action he admits to, but hasn't been found to be a crime even. If he is found guilty, I hope he burns. But even if found innocent, his life is destroyed and adding onto that destruction by accusing him of rape seven years earlier is just as criminal as any other rape accusation if found to be false.

(trying to get back on topic here)

Oh I know why I got Martin's age wrong. A friend of mine was talking about the story, and said it was scary that the kid who got shot was the same age as her brother. And I forgot she has two brothers, one 12 and the other 17. Also my mistake. But I'm sorry we can't assume he was casing anything. He might actually have just been cutting through the neighbourhood. And he wasn't really dressed all that suspiciously. Just a hoodie. Everyone wears them. I have one for heaven's sake, and even you guys probably wouldn't call me suspicious.

"If there's evidence that Zimmerman's actions aren't covered by the stand-your-ground law then he should go to prison. If there isn't he shouldn't. Simple." - I agree. I doubt very much however that Zimmerman's actions were. And I'm free to do so, cause I'm not on his jury.

But fine, I give up. i really do. You win. The real problem with society is all the fake rape accusations. Actual rape, not really such a big deal, or terribly common.
So enjoy your victory. You've broken me.

The problem with rape accusations is they are so easy to make after the fact, especially years later when what evidence might have been collected is gone. If women will come forth right away and have a rape kit run, the evidence is there to prove it like vaginal tearing and such from the struggle. A non-willing female's vagina rejects the males penis violently as well and gets damaged where a willing participant's doesn't knw matter how rough they get. But years later, that damage is A) healed or B) scar tissue that can't be accurately judged to a date and time of the event.

Additionally, rape kits comb for the perpetrator's pubic hair and semen, evidence long lost after a shower or two or several years worth of bathing. Fingernail scraping evidence is lost as well as bruising and other photographic evidence.

So the key to stopping rapes is for the victims to come forward immediately and have the rape kit completed. It's the best chance of convicting the guy if the woman knows who he was (very common) or finding the guy and then convicting him if she doesn't.

Ugh. UGH ARGH. But not every rape is necessarily a struggle or a forced rape. What if it's coerced? What if someone is taken advantage of while unconscious, what if someone is tricked into co-operating. What if the victim is traumatized and doesn't immediately want someone sticking medical equipment up her vagina? Draug your stances on sexual violence are just so out of date, and so problematic. I'd really really like you to think about them.

I understand what you're saying about the difficulty of proof. But that doesn't necessarily explain why most people doubt nearly every single high profile rape case. It would be one thing if like, a case here or there was doubtful. But like, we're talking about every single one. This points to something different. Something systematic.

(And it's not only every single high profile rape case, it's every single rape case, it's just most people haven't heard of the non-high profile ones) In fact the only cases I can think of where the immediate assumption wasn't just "she's making it up for attention" are the cases where the victim is also murdered. I don't think you realize the degree to which you are parroting tired, pretty thoroughly disproven rape apologia.

to answer all of mafia's questions

Bob Genghiskhan.

Let me put it this way Draugnar, others:

If ever someone falsely accuses me of rape, I will treat it the same way if anyone falsely accused me of another crime - get the best lawyer I can afford and allow justice to acquit me.

Quite frankly, although this perhaps should not be the case, I am fairly confident that even in a case with a very small amount of evidence one way or another, that I would be acquitted rather than convicted, all other things being equal. This works in my favor and in the favor of justice only because I am a rapist. For rapists, it is counter to justice, the tendency to acquit men is, that is.

But much like the mods view here (which you should know well, Thucy), better that five guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail. The problem with rape accusations lies in the fact that even an acquital still leaves a truly innocent man's reputation in rags where as an acquital of an actual rapist victimizes his victim(s) even further. It's the worst of the crimes because, unlike robbery or even murder, the victim gets victimized over and over and we have no real way to tell who the true victim is in way too many cases due to the time it often takes for a woman or child to come forward and that crucial loss of "smoking gun" evidence that can usually be found at most other crime scenes weeks and months later but is gone within hours at the rape crime scene which is the woman or child's own body.

I'll admit I was being a bit of a punk last night. I do truly feel for any woman who has been raped. I had a very close friend who was raped by her step-brother when she was 16. She ended up taking her life years later in part because her own step-mom and her dad didn't believe her.

The thing is, I agree about guilt and innocence, but within in the context of the judicial system. I dare not tell a person they have no right to accuse someone of a crime - if they are innocence, let blind Justice bear that out.

In the meantime, too many actual rapists go free.

Like, no, seriously. I was at a party where there was a rape. I didn't hear of it till long after, but I was never able to see things the same way again.