Can't we all just get along?

[Soapy Sam]

Well yes but the topic is also about myths, and false allegation is a very powerful one. There is not the same focus nor fear about false allegations of any other crime, or so it seems to me.

Sexual , or any, assault against children, or any potentially suspect behaviour around children. For much the reasons Gumboot cites re NZ rape.
I saw a kid yesterday in my local supie. - about 3 , separated from whomever she was with , in tears and headed for the door to the dark and icy car park.
AND I LET HER GO.
Even ten years ago, I would have taken her by the hand and led her to a staff member- or even put her on my shoulders so she might see her mother. Now? No way.

If I have to choose between that kid risking being run over in a dark car park and me being accused of attempted abduction, sorry , but she's not my problem.

That behaviour is a direct response to social conditioning - and, frankly, of fear. I'm not happy about it. Time was I would have behaved very differently. Maybe myconcern is overdone, a result of the sort of myth and misunderstanding you name, but that's hardly the point. The point is that the conditioning is real.
It's pretty clear from this thread that the same can be said of rape.

 

[Francesca R]

"But the point is that it is mostly this"

"But the point is that it is sometimes that and the other"

"But the point is that it is mostly this"

"But the point is that it is sometimes that and the other"

--points taken.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The situation as it generally is is that people are raped. Focusing solely on one or the other, or characterizing women as victims and men as monsters, isn't productive.

The special victim status gambit is used with the aim of securing emotional or rhethorical (or both) leverage. A similar tactic is the employment of comparative innocence.

DR

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Sexual , or any, assault against children, or any potentially suspect behaviour around children. For much the reasons Gumboot cites re NZ rape.
I saw a kid yesterday in my local supie. - about 3 , separated from whomever she was with , in tears and headed for the door to the dark and icy car park.
AND I LET HER GO.
Even ten years ago, I would have taken her by the hand and led her to a staff member- or even put her on my shoulders so she might see her mother. Now? No way.

If I have to choose between that kid risking being run over in a dark car park and me being accused of attempted abduction, sorry , but she's not my problem.

That behaviour is a direct response to social conditioning - and, frankly, of fear. I'm not happy about it. Time was I would have behaved very differently. Maybe myconcern is overdone, a result of the sort of myth and misunderstanding you name, but that's hardly the point. The point is that the conditioning is real.
It's pretty clear from this thread that the same can be said of rape.

http://briandeer.com/social/thatcher-society.htm

And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families.

 

[MattC]

"But the point is that it is mostly this"

"But the point is that it is sometimes that and the other"

"But the point is that it is mostly this"

"But the point is that it is sometimes that and the other"

--points taken.

You essentially get this sort of thing when you're faced with arguments from fear.

To briefly summarize the point of view the men seem to be promoting in this thread, it's not about court to us - we're pretty sure that if it ever gets to court, we can defend ourselves quite well. Whether or not this belief is warranted I don't know, but it's what I at least think. The facts do tend to come out in court, and if it truly is a false accusation then we can be exonerated.

However, exoneration in legal court is not the same thing as exoneration in the court of public opinion. Using some of the statistics previously presented, what are men supposed to expect a reasonable third party to believe? Judging from many of the views herein presented, many women seem very understanding of why such a case would not be taken to court, or why a case of rape could be dismissed even if true, which denies the innocent male any chance of getting some form of exoneration, ephemeral though it may be.

Further, judging by the statistics presented earlier in the thread, 2% of these accusations are considered to be false. 98% of them, therefore, had some amount of justification to them. Is the male in question then to ask a third party to believe him the 1 in 50 "good guy"? If the third party is female, how can she ever be sure he's not lying to get close to her? How, essentially, can the male in question ever get the trust of the community back?

That seems to be the primary fear of men in the issue - they really have no reasonable defense against this weapon, which will leave them without a prayer of social acceptance ever again... which happens to be precisely what men fear to be the motive behind such an accusation in the first place. Not having very much of a social defense against this terrifies the hell out of them. For the male so accused, the best option seems to be to move far away - and then have to do so again if the charge ever again rears its ugly head.

Fear does feed upon itself and grow, often with consequences well outside the initial problem.

~ Matt

 

[Fiona]

First I would like to apologise for not addressing the second part of gumboot's post #129. I did focus on the first part because that is where the facts are relevant and also because it is where the very loaded language is: but it is not all that is important in that post.

I will not talk about the detail of what happened because I think MattC has made the case gumboot was trying to make rather better:that is not to say that gumboot's personal experience is not telling, though. I just think that part of his story is as it is because the people concerned were young. Teenagers are very judgemental and they do not have much experience of the world: and friendships are often quite labile at that time. So while I do think it illustrates the fear, I think MattC widens the problem, and thus makes it clearer.

What I want to say is that this fear of loss of reputation is obviously very real: and I can see that if that happened then it would be difficult to refute. So that makes a certain amount of sense to me.

What I think that some of the men here are missing is this: the woman labelled as one who levelled a false accusation is just as ostracised. It may be difficult for you to believe, but this is a very strong thread in how women are brought up. Again I stress: false accusation does happen. It does not happen often but it does happen. And it is seen as utterly unacceptable for many reasons. Women are aware of the seriousness of such an accusation: they are aware of the very difficult process it brings into play, as Francesca and others have said: and they are also aware that they will not easily be believed. If you are not aware of it then I can only ask you to accept that a women who is seen as falsely accusing a man is in no better position than a man who is falsely accused and is not believed.

As has been said, the research shows that most of the false allegations do not name anyone:and it also shows that the template of what constitutes "real rape" leads many women to doubt what they have experienced: these myths affect all of us. There are many reasons for a woman to make a false claim of rape but, despite the myth, it is seldom for motives of revenge, and it is seldom a weapon (except, perhaps, of self defence). That is not to say it never happens, but it truly is rare.

Which brings me to tyr's very open post: in this case of rape the victim was a child. I have already said elsewhere that the experience of young people who are subjected to sexual molestation is the same for both boys and girls in many ways. tyr's confusion about his response is absolutely common for both girls and boys and it is part of what leads to problems in later life. Guilt about their complicity is more than common: it is almost universal. Many paedophiles consciously inculcate it partly because it helps to ensure silence: and partly I think because it helps them to justify what they are doing to themselves. But the plain fact is that sexual molestation of a child is never justifiable: there is no possibility of obtaining consent and that is all there is to it.

I am very sorry this happened to you tyr because your confusion and distress is an almost universal outcome of this kind of behaviour, in my experience: and I hope that you have the help and support you need to get that into a more realistic perspective. Why did you do as you were told? Because that is what decent kids do. Why did your body show some signs of pleasure? Because that is what bodies do (see the other thread). You did not consent: you could not consent: and you have no reason for concern about your sex drive either. It may be strong, weak or average: it matters not one whit. What matters is your ethics, and those are not lacking, if I judge from what you have posted here: as I must.

The second experience you relate was wrong and you were wronged. Sadly earlier situation may have led you to doubt yourself and your motivation. Such shame is a killer and it is not specific to your gender: it is a part of the price people pay for childhood sexual molestation I think: so you were probably vulnerable long before this arose.

Your third experience puzzles me, I confess. I am inclined to set this down to a cultural difference because we Scots are not a demonstrative people and we just don't do "hugging" at work: at least I have never seen it, except where colleagues were really in a relationship; or at the xmas party when all bets are off. But I believe that Americans are more likely to hug and so I cannot comment: perhaps others here can understand this better than me. In my culture a person who behaved as you described this woman behaving would be a very big red flag: but that is unlikely to be universal. And as I have said before; we have employment protection. People just don't get sacked on the strength of one person's accusation alone so far as I have seen: this too seems to be very different in America and so I have some trouble sorting out myth from reality in that context.

Your last case is odd I confess: I can see how the situation arose very easily. And I can see how the social situation you were in made it very hard to deal with. I assume you did not tell the others what was happening and perhaps this was because you were uncomfortable with the expectation that you would be seen as strange: perhaps you thought others would perceive you "got lucky" and be amused you did not see it that way: if that is the case then I believe you are the victim of another myth: because I do not think men are always up for sex and I know for a fact some are monogamous. Pity that is not often acknowledged but there it is: these myths put strait-jackets on us all

 

[Fiona]

I saw a kid yesterday in my local supie. - about 3 , separated from whomever she was with , in tears and headed for the door to the dark and icy car park.
AND I LET HER GO.
Even ten years ago, I would have taken her by the hand and led her to a staff member- or even put her on my shoulders so she might see her mother. Now? No way.

If I have to choose between that kid risking being run over in a dark car park and me being accused of attempted abduction, sorry , but she's not my problem.

That behaviour is a direct response to social conditioning - and, frankly, of fear. I'm not happy about it. Time was I would have behaved very differently. Maybe myconcern is overdone, a result of the sort of myth and misunderstanding you name, but that's hardly the point. The point is that the conditioning is real.
It's pretty clear from this thread that the same can be said of rape.

Yes. One of things that makes me so concerned about all of this is just what you say: I have seen men react in this way in similar circumstances: and it is beyond sad: it is terrifying. Children are at risk and this stupid, overblown, sensationalised mythology is increasing that. Not only do men not help children in danger: children in fear and distress run away from people. Nothing could be more dangerous. Nothing.

And we have achieved this how? In the name of a free press, partly, I think. In the name of policy which is designed to protect organisations at the expense of the people who work there and of the people they serve. There are other factors but that would take some teasing out. As I keep saying, it harms us all

 

[CyCrow]

I'd like to thank the people who have contributed personal insights into this pretty dark and depressing subject, I at least feel I have gained increased understanding. I can't say I "get it" regarding the freeze response, but that doesn't mean it's not real. I don't "get it" when it when it comes to rapist behaviour either, but neither "It's about violence/domination" or "It's about sex" are satisfactory in all cases.

Clearly, the old attitudes about rape were wrong, and much progress has been made. But there is a risk in taking things too far, and there is a danger in special interest groups overplaying risks, downplaying false/baseless accusations and creating new rape myths ("It's all about violence").

I was quite surprised by an aquittal in the media today. No, not a suspected rapist, but a suspected murderer. From the press reports from the trial, it seemed like a sure case. The deceased was drugged with sleeping pills, hit in the head with a hammer, then the killer stole cash, the victims car and emptied the victims bank account at an ATM while wearing a disguise. Deceased found 10 days later while the killer seemed to behave normally, even meeting the partner of the victim, except for spending more money than usual. Guilty? Well, the killer was a woman (59), the victim a man (63), and she claimed that the victim tried to rape her. She claimed that after the man made advances, she put sleeping pills she was carrying into some cakes, they apparently didn't work, and she claims to have hit him in the head with an axe as he tried to rape her. She also claims to not remember anything from the 10 days after the murder. From what I have read, her story has no credibility. Evidently the court though different...

Just to add a personal perspective, to show where my personal experience bias comes from:

I'm normally a rather rational person, and on the one occation where I was genuinely afraid of "very bad stuff" happening to a close friend, I went into "hyper-rational" mode, almost emotionless. I remember thinking "shouldn't I be more upset?" as I went through possible scenarios in my head. At any rate, things turned out well, no emergency plan needed. Pent-up emotions came as an after-reaction though.

// CyCrow

 

[Magenta]

Clearly, the old attitudes about rape were wrong, and much progress has been made.

From my reading of the literature presented in this and other threads, I'd say the old attitudes are still current.

 

[gumboot]

Sexual , or any, assault against children, or any potentially suspect behaviour around children. For much the reasons Gumboot cites re NZ rape.
I saw a kid yesterday in my local supie. - about 3 , separated from whomever she was with , in tears and headed for the door to the dark and icy car park.
AND I LET HER GO.
Even ten years ago, I would have taken her by the hand and led her to a staff member- or even put her on my shoulders so she might see her mother. Now? No way.

If I have to choose between that kid risking being run over in a dark car park and me being accused of attempted abduction, sorry , but she's not my problem.

That behaviour is a direct response to social conditioning - and, frankly, of fear. I'm not happy about it. Time was I would have behaved very differently. Maybe myconcern is overdone, a result of the sort of myth and misunderstanding you name, but that's hardly the point. The point is that the conditioning is real.
It's pretty clear from this thread that the same can be said of rape.

Another example is the desperate shortage of male teachers and caregivers (particularly primary and pre school) due primarily to a fear of being accused falsely of sexual abuse. That's a very real and very negative impact of this "myth making".

 

[gumboot]

Is this addressed to me? Look, I AM sorry that your personal experience has troubled you so much, but all I wanted to do was to address a contradiction. In your initial post, you explicitly stated that you were so afraid of false accusations that it made you uncomfortable to even play rough, and in another post, you say you're not afraid but merely "cautious". This simply does not follow.

I wouldn't qualify it as a fear at all, though. I'm not afraid that my partner will think I'm assaulting her - I think I made it quite clear in my first post that she likes me to be more assertive sometimes, and I know this without question.

I've had my original post misquoted to me numerous times, but I do know what I wrote. The comments about my personal relationship followed an example of how social attitudes towards sexuality are so different for males and females - what is acceptable behaviour for a woman is not acceptable for a male (you may recall I used the example of cheating on a partner). It had nothing to do with false allegations.

So when I was talking about my own relationship, I was talking about how the different expectations for the two genders affect my behaviour.

It's a psychological block in me. Society has hard-wired an acceptable type of behaviour, and being a strong and assertive breaks that moral limit.

Think of it this way...

Do you murder people?

I'm going to guess no. Why not? Is it fear? Of course it's not fear; you have an acceptable level of behaviour encoded into you, and murdering someone steps outside that boundary. So it is with what I'm talking about. I have no idea why anyone of you just assumed - without reason - that this was somehow about fear.

I do, however, have a very good idea why several of you decided I was talking about false allegations when clearly I wasn't. It fits into your own agenda.

 

[egslim]

the woman labelled as one who levelled a false accusation is just as ostracised.

True, but how often does that happen? If an accusation lacks sufficient proof to result in a conviction that doesn't mean it was false. Innocent until proven guilty is good as a legal principle, but in the court of public opinion it doesn't apply. Unless there is clear, objective evidence that the woman was lying she will not be labelled as such.



I think a significant number of rapes are a matter of unfortunate miscommunication. An anecdote to demonstrate:
- A few years ago I dated a girl living some distance away. We planned for her to spend the weekend at my place, so we could go out. I told her I'd get the spare bed ready, but she asked if she couldn't sleep in my bed. Which caught me by more than a little suprise, but I agreed.
At this point my interpretation was that she wanted to have sex. As it later turned out, that wasn't so. She falsely expected me to have a 2-person bed, and had difficulty sleeping alone in a silent room. The endresult was that we did have sex, sooner than either of us had wanted, because we both felt pressured by our misunderstanding of the other's intentions.
I still think the assumption that a girl wants to have sex if she says she wants to sleep in my bed is not unreasonable, but in this case it was wrong. Luckily she didn't regret it afterwards. Had she responded similarly passive/shocked as Fiona was in her story, and had I been more experienced, I would arguably have been a rapist without realising it.

In my experience girls generally expect guys to take the initiative. But most males just plain suck at non-verbal communication. And in practice no often doesn't even mean no. I've had a girl tell me "no", to which I responded with "okay", though I believed she would change her mind. Ten minutes later she took me to her bedroom. Or girls don't even say no. I've kissed a girl on the cheek on a second date, without receiving any verbal objection from her. Turned out she strongly disliked it, and cancelled our next date at the last moment because it still bothered her. (Only then did I guess the reason, explained and apologised to her. I'm happy to say we made up.)

I grew up with my grandparents, who never kissed or cuddled in public. So I didn't learn to do so either. As I moved out I decided I had to adapt to contemporary social behaviour. Which I did to some extent, but some awkwardness remains, and I'm uncommonly careful and more conscious of what I do than most guys. Also I never get drunk, which helps the consciousness part.
Nevertheless, I feel the line between appreciated sexual initiative and rape is grey, sometimes hard to distinguish and very different per person. So I can sympathise with a guy who accidentally crosses it. I've felt miserable for kissing a girl who didn't want to be kissed, and regretted not kissing a girl who probably wanted to be kissed. It can be very hard to tell, and women need to be explicit, or otherwise even well-meaning guys will occasionally get it wrong.

 

[Lonewulf]

Another example is the desperate shortage of male teachers and caregivers (particularly primary and pre school) due primarily to a fear of being accused falsely of sexual abuse. That's a very real and very negative impact of this "myth making".

Not to mention the myth of how homosexual=child molester. See the boy scout policies for an example...

 

[PhantomWolf]

Not to mention the myth of how homosexual=child molester. See the boy scout policies for an example...

In NZ all you need to say is "Peter Ellis" though some will still claim black and blue that he really was a child molester.

 

[Fiona]

True, but how often does that happen? If an accusation lacks sufficient proof to result in a conviction that doesn't mean it was false. Innocent until proven guilty is good as a legal principle, but in the court of public opinion it doesn't apply. Unless there is clear, objective evidence that the woman was lying she will not be labelled as such.

I do not think this is true. In the "court of public opinion" proof and facts don't really count much at all. It mostly stereotype and myth. I do realise men believe that the woman will be believed, and that is why I keep coming back to the attrition rates: their relevance is that they are one indication of the state of public opinion, because they both reflect it and inform it: the courts and the police are part of our culture, and their attitudes have been subject to research while those of the wider population have not so much. It is also true that the standard of proof and the need for evidence plays a part, but as some of the studies linked show, the approach is affected by the myths we are discussing. The public are subject to the same ideas and will reach their conclusions for all sorts of irrelevant reasons and on the basis of quite bizarre assumptions

I think a significant number of rapes are a matter of unfortunate miscommunication. An anecdote to demonstrate:
- A few years ago I dated a girl living some distance away. We planned for her to spend the weekend at my place, so we could go out. I told her I'd get the spare bed ready, but she asked if she couldn't sleep in my bed. Which caught me by more than a little suprise, but I agreed.
At this point my interpretation was that she wanted to have sex. As it later turned out, that wasn't so. She falsely expected me to have a 2-person bed, and had difficulty sleeping alone in a silent room. The endresult was that we did have sex, sooner than either of us had wanted, because we both felt pressured by our misunderstanding of the other's intentions.
I still think the assumption that a girl wants to have sex if she says she wants to sleep in my bed is not unreasonable, but in this case it was wrong. Luckily she didn't regret it afterwards. Had she responded similarly passive/shocked as Fiona was in her story, and had I been more experienced, I would arguably have been a rapist without realising it.

In my experience girls generally expect guys to take the initiative. But most males just plain suck at non-verbal communication. And in practice no often doesn't even mean no. I've had a girl tell me "no", to which I responded with "okay", though I believed she would change her mind. Ten minutes later she took me to her bedroom. Or girls don't even say no. I've kissed a girl on the cheek on a second date, without receiving any verbal objection from her. Turned out she strongly disliked it, and cancelled our next date at the last moment because it still bothered her. (Only then did I guess the reason, explained and apologised to her. I'm happy to say we made up.)

I grew up with my grandparents, who never kissed or cuddled in public. So I didn't learn to do so either. As I moved out I decided I had to adapt to contemporary social behaviour. Which I did to some extent, but some awkwardness remains, and I'm uncommonly careful and more conscious of what I do than most guys. Also I never get drunk, which helps the consciousness part.
Nevertheless, I feel the line between appreciated sexual initiative and rape is grey, sometimes hard to distinguish and very different per person. So I can sympathise with a guy who accidentally crosses it. I've felt miserable for kissing a girl who didn't want to be kissed, and regretted not kissing a girl who probably wanted to be kissed. It can be very hard to tell, and women need to be explicit, or otherwise even well-meaning guys will occasionally get it wrong.

I don't disagree with much of this at all: there is certainly a lot of scope for miscommunication. But I will ask you one question about the part I have bolded: why not you? I have mentioned before that I sometimes had the conversation: it was often awkward and it felt presumptuous but it was necessary at times: other times I didn't - it did not seem necessary; or maybe I could not find a moment to start it. I can say that I have never had a man open that conversation, however.

In the first example you cite, why did you not ask her intentions? How hard would it have been to say: you do realise I have a single bed? She did not know this. You would not even have had to be direct to open it: yet you did not. Why is it her responsibility alone? You say that you still think the assumption is reasonable yet you have evidence that it is not always so: why have you not changed your mind? (I have the impression you do yourself a disservice there and that you have a more sophisticated grasp of this now than before, so that may not be a relevant question) I put it to you that this call for women to be more explicit - which has also come up before- is really the perpetuation of another stereotype: it is for you to "try it on" and for her to boldly set the limits on your behaviour. I am not pretending it is easy to deal with this but we need to grow up and negotiate. For example, Matteo does not think that a closed bedroom door is a strong enough "non-verbal signal". Would you agree? Or do you think, like him, that it would have to be locked before the message was unmistakeable?

 

[Lonewulf]

How hard would it have been to say: you do realise I have a single bed? She did not know this.

At the very least, she saw that it was a single bed... I'm not sure why she couldn't have figured it out from there?

Either way, I think it's the assumption that it's always the man's responsibility to know and say such and such that's part of the problem.

 

[Fiona]

I could not disagree more. Lonewulf. It seems to me that it is always the woman's responsibility to set the limits. It is interesting that we have this difference, and I wonder what others think.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Fiona,

I've noticed you keep trying to assert false rape allegations are rare. E.g.,

There are many reasons for a woman to make a false claim of rape but, despite the myth, it is seldom for motives of revenge, and it is seldom a weapon (except, perhaps, of self defence). That is not to say it never happens, but it truly is rare.

How do you know this? How does anyone know this?

From the research I have done it appears the false allegation rate could be anywhere from 1 in 50 to more than 1 in 3.

It seems you are guilty of the crime you accuse others of committing: perpetuating myths. In your case it is the myth of certainty.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I could not disagree more. Lonewulf. It seems to me that it is always the woman's responsibility to set the limits. It is interesting that we have this difference, and I wonder what others think.

That's probably because women, in general, have more restrictive limits than men with respect to relationships. How do I know this is true? Women generally expect men to approach them to initiate a romantic relationship.

 

[Francesca R]

it's not about court to us [ . . . ] However, exoneration in legal court is not the same thing as exoneration in the court of public opinion.

I do follow this sentiment but I think it is not actually a clear picture of reality, and is an expression of what potential fears can be--and will be in some cases--but that much of the fear is not warranted.

If a person is not charged with rape, then their identity is not (supposed to be) made public. If they are charged, then it is, but the identity of the complainant is not (supposed to be) made public. [This is a "special case" of anonymity which is in general used sparingly in systems of open justice].

So if we are talking about cases that do not get to court, it is informal leaks, presumably by people who are long on prejudice and short on integrity, that result in localised, or perhaps publicised nastiness. But it can happen to the complainant and the accused and the effects on both are severe. Can we really say one party suffers more than the other in general, assuming that the complainant believes a rape occured and the accused does not, and the state does not either? I doubt it.

If we are talking about cases that are tried in court, then absent informal leaks, acquittals should result in an (i) an identified accused person whom the state has exonerated and (ii) a still anonymous complainant whom the state does not believe. In this case, then yes--there is apparently a net positive balance of exonerated people who were accused of rape and whom despite acquittal will have their reputation potentially damaged/destroyed. But depending on what you believe--some of those were actually guilty of an unproven rape, and some were victim of fictitious charges. If you believe (as I do) that false reporting is rare but that failure to convict genuine reports is common, then most of the acquitted accused people facing this (very bad) situation of hostile public reaction are actually guilty in fact, but not in the eyes of the law. What that means is that an innocent person should still not have a high level of expectation that they will be falsely accused, acquitted, and then ostracised by the public.

If you believe that false reporting is common and trial of innocents is also common, well this is where the fear probably springs from. Pace the evidence fights on this, that is a myth.