• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Can't we all just get along?

Assuming Fiona's story is accurate, there was no context during the evening leading up to the event to suggest she wanted to have sex with this man. No flirting, no kissing, no suggestive body language.

Why would any decent man assume she was waiting in her bedroom with the door closed for him to come in and have sex with her? Why would any decent man continue in his behaviour when the woman is lying there motionless and unresponsive?
 
^^ I think that reasonableness test is absolutely the correct one that a jury should decide on (if such a case was ever tried).
 
Anything I say at this point would break one of the forum's rules.

Someone tell me when Matteo has left the thread, please.
 
^^ I think that reasonableness test is absolutely the correct one that a jury should decide on (if such a case was ever tried).

But presumably the man would be lying through his teeth to the police about what happened after they got to Fiona's place.

Hopefully Fiona's friends could testify as to the context of the evening before that though, and the man's story could be repeatedly checked for consistency/plausibility.

I still think it would be very hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt (unless the jury already believed he had a 98% chance of being guilty:)).
 
Thank you for your kind words Fiona. A lot happened in this thread while I was away, so bear with me while I get caught up. From a couple of pages ago.

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.

One of the weirdest things is how her friends and family treated me. Now, her family doesn't even know, except for her sister, that we slept together, yet they still apparently ask her whatever happened with me, why she doesn't talk about me anymore, etc. Her friends were very upset when they found out we had gone that far. Not that we had slept together, but that she went back to her boyfriend after. This might all have something to do with her man being universally recognized as an asshat.

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.

It confused me too. At this point in my life I hadn't so much as held hands with a woman, besides the unpleasantness of my childhood, and had very little social experience with women besides being the nice guy friend. People didn't generally hug people that much, so I was very confused. Looking back it was a red flag, but a red flag of what I wasn't sure at the time.

That job they were doing had a very high turnover rate in general, and like I said, I don't know if the two men fired were done so rightly or not, but they were fired immediately after her accusation. She was fired soon after getting a female supervisor.


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

They were my closest female friends and I still didn't tell them for several reasons. The biggest one is that I highly doubted that they would believe me. The girl could have just said I put my hand down her pants. As for the other two thinking that I just "got lucky," one of them is the 'no sex or sexual acts until marriage type and the other self identifies as 'whore'. So that would have a split decision. However, my girlfriend and I at the time were having trouble, and one of those troubles I had talked with my friends about was sexual. She liked to tease me, but didn't want any sex acts. Now, I'm not talking about just cuddling and kissing type escalation, I'm talking about, 'laying on top of me naked after taking a shower even though my back was out and I couldn't have done much even if I wanted to' type of teasing. There were a couple of other things that got me going that I asked her to stop that she would not. Oddly my female friends assumed that I wanted her to just have sex with me, while my male friends made the correct assumption that I wanted the teasing to stop. This belief was so ingrained with my female friends that when the later wrote a letter to my girlfriend with a list of reasons she should dump me, one of the reasons they cited was my complaining that my girlfriend was not willing to be more sexual with me. I had said the opposite. They refuse to believe me still.

The entire situation is even more confusing than that, but it still illustrates a point. These girls who were my friends in part because I was a 'nice guy' who is respectful of women and doesn't make everything sexual still could not believe that I wanted less sexual activity. I went from being, "the nicest guy" they knew to being, "a ****ing psycho." All because I was having relationship problems. Hell, she was my first girlfriend at the tender age of 22, you'd think they would be more understanding of my inexperience regarding relationships.

I am oversimplifying, and I by no means claim to have been perfect. I made some really messed up mistakes. But should I not be afraid of what women do with sexual matters? Is my fear unjustified? Just because it has been confirmed with just about every woman I've ever trusted, am I still being unreasonable?
 
Assuming Fiona's story is accurate, there was no context during the evening leading up to the event to suggest she wanted to have sex with this man. No flirting, no kissing, no suggestive body language.

Why would any decent man assume she was waiting in her bedroom with the door closed for him to come in and have sex with her? Why would any decent man continue in his behaviour when the woman is lying there motionless and unresponsive?

Assuming he was awake and sober, a decent man wouldn't.
Most of us wouldn't, even if drunk and half asleep.
(At least I wouldn't NOW. At 18 I was far less learned in dealing with alcohol, women or confused social situations- but I was pretty clear even then which bed belonged to whom).
But being a boorish oaf is not a crime- and while the guy was at least that, it's possible the lack of response seemed to him more like tolerance or even welcome, because he was sloshed. I tend to suppose Fiona's numb response was significantly due to alcohol too, but I wasn't there (!) so I can only guess.
Fiona makes the point clearly that she does not know what he was thinking.
I feel she gave him far too much benefit of the doubt myself. I reckon he tried his luck and got away with it. Several women I know would have sent him back whence he came using a range of methods, from sarcasm to a kick in the nadgers, - as I expect Fiona would now. We live and learn.
 
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.
Yet you're still uncomfortable in actually doing it. Subconscious fear, perhaps.

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.
Without reason? :newlol

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.
You whine about assumptions and now you're assuming I have an agenda. :rolleyes: Without reason, might I add -- you have no idea what the hell kind of "agenda" I could possibly have.
 
Anything I say at this point would break one of the forum's rules.

Someone tell me when Matteo has left the thread, please.
Suspended, he was, for derailing it seems. The dreaded Rule 11 railroad runs on time. ;)
 
Suspended, he was, for derailing it seems. The dreaded Rule 11 railroad runs on time. ;)

By the way, remind me to never dispense any personal issues I have on this forum. Now that I see how they'll be torn apart.

I see now why Francesca talked about not talking directly about someone's particular experiences.
 
I don't buy this line of reasoning for even one iota of a second. The entire point of the legal system is to prevent mob rule.

Yes, it is

The police and courts absolutely should not reflect the "court of public opinion".

No they shouldn't. But they are staffed by people.

You've provided no evidence whatsoever that they do,

I have, and so have others

and the number of times media coverage of court cases clashes with the eventual verdict suggests pretty strongly that they don't.

Why do you think that makes news?


The only thing you can point to is attrition rates, however that entire premise is built on the exceedingly shaky belief that absent the interference of "public opinion" these cases would result in conviction. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest this, and without it your entire argument comes crashing down.

I don't think you understand my argument and I certainly don't understand this

A far more logical explanation for high attrition rates is that A) most rape cases have insufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution

Yes: that is one of the reasons. And one of the reasons for that is that the police often do not look for evidence. They instead judge against the "template" on the basis of the same myths as the rest of us. This has been shown in some of the linked studies which I can only assume you either have not read or have not understood.

and B) most rape prosecutions have insufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

See above


None of these have anything to do with public opinion and both have everything to do with due process.

I do not agree: there is ample evidence for the police being human beings, who live in the same society as the rest of us

In other words, the high attrition rates are evidence that the courts and police do not reflect public opinion. Which is how it should be.

I have already said there will always be high attrition rates. You have offered nothing to show why these vary both between and within jurisdictions. Evidence has been supplied as to what changes might help. If you are not to be swayed by that I cannot help you

There's really two options here:

1) Western courts and law enforcement are utterly failing to adhere to the most basic tenants of their duty on a woeful and shocking level, yet no one seems concerned with this.

or

2) Conviction in most rape cases presented to police is unjustified based on the available information.

I'm sure I don't need to point out to most people which of the above is logical and obvious, and which is patently absurd.

Indeed :)
 
I agree. When I read Fiona's or Francesca's posts, I feel they want to add an extra sentence onto paragraphs in which they state their belief in the very rare false reporting of rape by women along the lines of:

"Therefore the judicial process should be changed so more men are convicted of rape because I know/believe most/all of the men are guilty anyway."

In Fiona's case it appears to me she believes the way to progress is to convince the public that a man charged with rape is almost certainly guilty, so any jury expects the man to prove his innocence.

Well if that is how you read my posts there is nothing more I can really say, Ivor. It is not what I have said: it is not what I believe: and it is not implicit in my posts. It is inside your head though, and there is nothing to be done it seems
 
Fiona, your avatar inspired this post, since this thread seems to be going down the drain with slow inexorability. I post it for two reasons, one of which is that the original version seems to have dropped from the archives from a year or so ago. The other is that no, we can't all get along, which is a damned shame.

Imagine no John Lennon
It's easy if you try
Mark David Chapman shot him
Then Yoko Ono cried

Imagine half the bullets
Hitting her instead --

You may say I'm a dreamer
Or a better shot than Mark
Any how, that ain't what happened
Down the street from Central Park


If we posit Mark David Chapman as a bizarre version of judge, jury, and executioner in the court of public opinion, we get the extreme case of why the informal system is so loaded with downside, even if the formal system is imperfect.

We can imagine that there is some sort of perfect justice, but I can't see it ever coming ot pass. The principles assumed in most Anglophone countries is that to avoid prosecution of the innocent, sufficient safeguards and standards have to be erected that, by their nature, makes more difficult the charging and conviction of all of the guilty. This leaves some perps free to walk. Their victims are hence deprived of their balancing serving of justice from the society that cannot protect them but can only react.

As a reflex, it seems, some people attempt to get their justice, or their revenge, in this court of public opinion. That course of action too is open to abuse, and false accusations, but is NOT subject to the checks and balances the court system is. Hence Gumboot's line in this thread, as well as bhits of Ivor's.

No, we can't all get along, but most of us can, most of the time. That meets the "good enough" standard.

DR
 
Not sure I understand this . . . ??

I talked about Fiona's experience, you didn't want to do so out of respect for Fiona.

As Matteo and DanishDynamite have worked their hardest to disrespect Fiona, and I see what they're doing, I recognize even more that you were right.
 
this thread seems to be going down the drain with slow inexorability
I don't think so, and I also think it can withstand commentary like that too.

I might tend to occupy boring "dismal science" threads mostly but this one has been more interesting and worthwhile IMO in this section than any in a long time.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom