Friday 26 August 2011

Sex, Lies and Political Agendas

A very good article over at the False Rape Society, on how women's advocates are harming victims by their spinning of the outcome of the DSK sexual assault case. I started to leave a comment there, but then it got kinda big, so I decided a post was in order.

Prosecution's decision to drop the case has been condemned by women's advocates as a miscarriage of justice. They characterize the system as one that demands a "perfect victim" if they aren't going to abandon her. This is a gross mischaracterization of the facts of this specific case. Nafissatou Diallo was not just an "imperfect victim", she was a "toxic complainant" who has a long history of lying, and has done pretty much nothing but lie from the moment she reported the alleged incident.

Credibility is important in a sexual assault case--more important than in many other criminal prosecutions. In cases of rape and sexual assault, there is often no physical evidence unambiguously indicating a crime was even committed. What evidence there may be is frequently evidence of a legal act, not a criminal one. The factors that differentiate the legal act of sex from the crime of rape are based entirely on two states of mind: those of the victim's non-consent, and the perpetrator's intent--that is, his (or a reasonable or law-abiding person's) awareness of the victim's lack of consent.

There are usually only two witnesses who can testify to either party's state of mind at the time of the incident--and each of those two witnesses have a vested and oppositional interest in the outcome of the trial. This means that in a sexual assault case, credibility is everything. Due to the ambiguity of the evidence and the biases of the only eyewitnesses, it should be more difficult to convict a man of rape than it is to convict a man of murder, or aggravated assault, or any number of other crimes that rely more heavily on physical/forensic evidence.

But here's something I bet you all didn't know (I'll explain why you probably don't know it below). The conviction rate for rape is frequently higher than the conviction rate for homicide. Seriously. The conviction rate for a crime where there is no unambiguous physical evidence, and which therefore hinges almost entirely on a jury believing one party over the other, is often higher than the conviction rate for a crime with a dead body, forensic evidence of cause of death, and physical evidence tying the defendant to the crime.

To suggest that the outcome of the DSK case means the system "doesn't work" is egregiously misleading and harmful. I'm not going to lie. The system works perfectly for neither victims nor defendants, but it's the best possible balance we can manage given the circumstances. And to characterize the dismissal of the DSK case as some sort of evil on the part of the prosecution is...well, I can only say it's batshit insane. Diallo repeatedly lied to those whose job it is to help her and punish the man who allegedly assaulted her. Then recanted her lies, only to present prosecutors with, yup, more lies. She insisted she was not after money, then launched a civil suit against DSK for monetary damages. She lied to the Grand Jury, under oath. She quite plainly proved herself to be someone who can't be counted on to tell the truth about anything.

Even more frightening to prosecutors was her ability to lie with "complete conviction". This meant that, no matter how convincing her story of a given day or week was, there was no way for prosecutors to determine if THIS particular version was the truth. The complaining witness was not an "imperfect victim". She was the justice system's worst nightmare. To go to trial with an alleged victim who can lie so convincingly that even prosecutors could not tell truth from falsehood...this could result in railroading a potentially innocent man based on the word of a woman who'd taken a tire iron to her own credibility.

As the FRS rightly claims, this case does not demonstrate that prosecutors require "perfect victims", and it is the women's advocates who make such absurd statements--not police or prosecutors--who are discouraging women from coming forward to report their rapes.

But I think women's "advocates" have a very different agenda from the one they openly admit to. As people who care about women, and care about rape victims, they should be doing everything in their power to convince women to come forward and report when they are raped. And yet they do the exact opposite.


I once suggested on a feminist forum that my advice to any victim of rape was to get a kit done. Even if you don't want to report--in fact, even if you're positive you don't want to--getting a kit done leaves you with options if you ever change your mind. You can stand on the bridge for a long time before deciding to cross it or go back, but not if you've burned the way in front of you--and you do that by washing away all the physical evidence of what was done to you. Not getting a rape kit done erases all your choices, removes all your power.

Oh, the shit I got from feminists! That I should have the gall to "tell victims what to do! Don't you realize how hard it is? How small the chances of justice are? How victims are revictimized if they report? It's up to every victim how she wants to respond to what happened to her! She knows what's best for herself!"

I suppose it's just as well that I didn't suggest that women have a social responsibility to report their rapes, even if they don't want to go through the ordeal of pursuing charges. Go in to police, tell them, "I was raped. His name is John Doe. His DNA is in a test tube at Local Hospital. I don't want to pursue the case. But if another woman comes in saying this guy raped her, believe her and do everything you can to nail him."

Imagine someone implying that women have a responsibility to other people! I would probably have been crucified for even hinting at such a thing.


There's a pervasive and very public sentiment among feminists and women's advocates that it is pointless to report. That women should not trust the police or the legal system because it will, at best, let them down, and at worst, clobber them. At the same time, they inflate rape statistics, always applying the highest possible estimates on non-report figures (even when such numbers couldn't possibly add up), and including women who didn't believe they'd been raped among victims in surveys. At the same time, they deflate false report statistics, clinging to the insistence that false report rates for rape are ~2%, the same as for every other crime, even though a growing body of evidence places the rate somewhere between 8% and a staggering 50%.

They routinely compare the attrition rate for rape (the percentage of reported rapes that end in conviction) alongside the conviction rates (the percentage of trials that end in conviction) for other crimes. How many times have we all read that the "conviction rate" for rape is a "pathetic" 6%, when in reality it is usually 50-60%, and often higher than the conviction rate for homicide.

All while simultaneously implying there is nothing women can do, no way they can (or should) dress or behave that will minimize their risk, and that every woman is at risk because "any woman can be raped". They go out of their way to highlight a "culture of victim-blaming" that, in their view, applies solely to rape, when I would argue that we as a society are more likely to engage in blaming male victims of female violence (he must have done something to deserve it, he was probably a cheater, he probably battered her, she was defending herself), and male victims of female reproductive abuse (he should have thought of that before he had sex, don't stick your dick in crazy, if he didn't want kids he should have kept it in his pants).

Even when these feminists and victim advocates are being nominally truthful, they still spin the truth in the most pessimistic light.

It's like they want women to believe that there's a HUGE chance they'll be raped, that there's nothing they can do to prevent it, and that when it happens, not only will no one help them, but those responsible for helping them will only inflict more harm on them. To what purpose?

We're seeing the thin end of the wedge on campus now, with the attack on due process rights--the new 50.01% burden of proof, the barring of an accused from cross-examining his accuser, etc. Feminist's defence of this atrocious situation tends to consist of, "What, so it's a horrible thing that the accused won't be able to personally ask the accuser, 'Isn't it true you're a big ol' slut?'" when such a question would already be inadmissible in any hearing or court. Again, painting a false picture of the process as it was before this "reform" in the ugliest possible colors.

I can only believe that those who engage in this kind of scare-mongering and doomsaying have a specific goal in mind. I'm not a conspiracy nut, but here's how I see it, looking at the entirety of feminist discourse on rape:

  • discourage women from reporting by telling them it is pointless, that they won't be believed, or will be blamed for their own rapes and revictimized by the system, that the police can't be trusted
  • manipulate consent law to the point where even women who enthusiastically participated in consensual sex can be numbered among victims (consensual drunk sex, consensual unconscious sex)
  • generate fear among women by telling them there is nothing they can, or should have to, do to protect themselves from rape
  • generate fear among women by telling them that any woman at any time is at risk of rape
  • inflate the numbers for underreporting, leading to a pervasive belief that rape is everywhere
  • compare attrition rates for rape with conviction rates for other crimes, so that the public will believe the system doesn't work in rape cases
  • constantly reiterate the erroneous 2% false rape "statistic", generating an erroneous assumption that women "don't lie about rape"
  • define rape as a crime of "patriarchal domination" rather than one that has a multitude of different factors and causes--in other words, blame rape on "maleness" in such a way that all men are cast as rapists or rapists-in-waiting
  • charge the discourse with emotional language that places "feelings" in authority over facts--i.e: "If she feels she was raped, then she was raped."
  • characterize the necessary due process protections for accused rapists as an "infringement of female/victim's rights", even though the "rights" of complainants--female or otherwise--are currently greater in cases of sexual assault and rape than in other criminal case (anonymity is a privilege, not a right, as is the inadmissibility of an accuser's sometimes relevant sexual history)
Is anyone else seeing a pattern here? The last thing many women's advocates want is for anyone to believe the system isn't irreparably broken. Because if it isn't hideously broken, then there is no need to "fix" it or rebuild it. And if rape isn't everywhere, and something women must walk around in constant fear of, then the masses will simply never be terrified enough of it to enact the kind of overhaul that would lead to the kinds of "reforms" that are "necessary", ones we've already seen enacted on campuses across the US.

After examining the entirety of the rhetoric of sexual assault and rape from feminist circles, I can only conclude that the end game of women's advocacy groups is to reengineer sexual assault and rape law to the point where a woman need only claim a man raped her for him to be locked away for years. 

Welcome to Hell.


  1. A hearty agreement to everything, with the big exception of "consensual unconscious sex." One would think that making any kind of decision would require consciousness.

  2. When I was talking about consensual unconscious sex, I was talking about agreed-upon activity, such as waking my bf up with morning head at his request.

    This kind of thing has recently been criminalized in Canada, even among long-term couples and even when the activity is requested or agreed-upon. Right now, caressing your wife in her sleep--or even kissing her goodbye in the morning--is legally considered sexual assault.

    And the entire precedent was based on a false complaint of rape (kinky, consensual sex) that the court knows was false (the victim recanted), and there's a man serving time for it right now.

    Scary times.

  3. If a man or woman was given the choice of either :
    A) being raped and beaten in all possible ways by a disgusting individual during a single night or
    B) going to prison for a number of years , knowing the above was likely to happen more than once during the sentence given the charge,
    which alternative would he/she chose ?
    My point is, what Diallo actually tried to do to another human being is even worse than what she falsely claimed DSK did...
    Where is all the disgust and outrage and "systemic problem" now that it should rightly be turned against a woman ?
    Thank you, at least you, for making sense.

  4. "Consnsual unconcsious sex" might also--you know, it's weird but--drunk girl you're getting hot with passes out and you don't really notice she's not really awake (especially if you're drunk too).

    By the way, thank you for the common sense here. One thing I think you didn't notice: just how INFANTALIZING OF WOMEN so much of this really is. When a man is a victim of a crime, when does anyone ever whip out the "don't tell the victim how to feel or what to do" line? What infantalizing nonsense to assume women are such delicate flowers they cannot possibly be asked to take some sensible measures, proactively and/or after-the-fact such as you suggest.

    I often think common sense on these things will not be restored until most of the Baby Boomers have passed away and women of your (our) age and earlier start to be willing to speak up and start holding women accountable for their own behavior like equal members of this society.

    1. Oh, I do notice how these attitudes infantilize women. It's basic objectification, really, casting women as inanimate objects with no will, volition or ability to act, upon whom outside forces act instead.

      We're so prone to seeing women this way, that when we see one hitting a man, we'll instantly ask, "What did he do to deserve that?" and when we see a man hitting a woman, we'll instantly think, "She couldn't have done anything to deserve that!" Because we see women like babies, unable to act, only able to be acted upon and react to the actions of others.

      It's fucking insulting.

      Thanks for the comment. :)

    2. "I often think common sense on these things will not be restored until most of the Baby Boomers have passed away and women of your (our) age and earlier start to be willing to speak up and start holding women accountable for their own behavior like equal members of this society."

      GWW has my support for her insightful and well researched pieces. I find most everything that GWW writes a match of my experience and thinking. I have huge concerns about feminism and its impact on men's, women's and children's lives.

      However, I don't believe that age is a rescue remedy for any of the ills of our society other than their perpetuation. It concerns me to find so many comments on the internet of the everything will be peachy when the "boomer die" variety.

      Over the past 40 years or so, many people have started identifying themselves using advertising demographics. These designations are meaningless for understanding anyone.

      Age in my observation has very little to do with:

      * political beliefs, right, left, fascist, anarchist
      * religious beliefs
      * whether they are an environmentalist or drive an SUV and live in a mcmansion

      In fact, in the 60s feminism got my interest when there was some notion expressed that women need to step up and be accountable for themselves (Virginia Woolf said as much 2/3 generations ago). But this never caught on with the masses of women or the popular feminists, and to my knowledge no recent feminists support this.

      It lost my interest when I developed a long term relationship, had sons and realized what bull crap was being espoused, especially in the 80s.

      I would say that few young women are aware of the things that GWW points out. Younger men are much more likely to be aware because they have grown up with male marginalization. The younger women I meet just feel entitled as a matter of course (it may always have been so, especially for the attractive ones). More so if they went to university where humanities courses are pumped up with post-modernist gender war content.

      In fact I have found lots of internet content where young men find anti-corporate conspiracy theory to be compelling. It means they get to be marginalized victims too without having to blame the entire mess on women and feminism.

  5. Your courage and raw nerve for writing as you do here simply takes my breath away.

    On a hot summer evening in Greenwich Village, a black woman as tall as I am suddenly moved towards me on a street corner, got within a 2 feet of my face and began to taunt my masculinity in a loud jocular voice. She was a total stranger, and I had not seen her until she approached me. My hand shot out instinctively to stiff arm her and keep her out of my personal space. She immediately began a hue and cry that I was a lech trying to grope her breasts. I glanced behind her and saw two black men standing nearby looking intently at me and her, with stone faces and each having one hand inside his jacket (why were they wearing jackets? It was a hot night in New York!)

    I immediately guessed that the woman who had gotten aggressive with me was a prostitute on a probable drug high. And that the mysterious brooding men nearby were her pimps or the moral equivalent, and that they were packing heat and would use it on me, on the least pretext. I turned on my heels and walked away briskly, risking the chance that they would shoot me in the back. I was not alone but with a male friend from my college days, who praised me for keeping cool and not saying a word.

    But since then, I have no trouble believing that there are women who go looking for trouble, and then demand sympathy and resources when they find it. And I suspect that Diallo is cut from a similar cloth. I say that despite the fact that I utterly despise DSK for his multi-decade pattern of despicable and lecherous conduct. To a large extent he had it coming. But his wife has dumped him and he will no longer play a role in European public life.

    1. "Everywhere you look—everywhere you look!–there are feminists pushing their way to the front of the line demanding women’s “fair share” of all of the goodies, the good stuff, the loot, the booty, the cookies. Even if women don’t need it. Even if women don’t deserve it. And even if somebody else needs it and deserves it more.
      And they get it, because we give it to them". -Karen Straughn (GirlWritesWhat)

  6. I'm a bit late to the comment part, but all the same:

    I think one of the reasons my distaste for feminists became more and more like pure vitriol, is rooted in how I was treated by many so-called "fighters for equality" after being raped.

    I blogged about the experience when I still has a somewhat popular blog, and it somehow ended up being commented on by some members active in the feminist community.

    Not only did many of these activists have the nerve to tell me that my choice to not report made it consensual (apparently that meant I was condoning my rapists actions and that was just a blatant display of internalized misogyny? Some fuckshit like that), but they refused to understand why I had taken issue with the statistics/dogma about rape spouted off during Slutwalks and the like.

    They didn't seem to understand that at fifteen I was not only heartbroken by what happened, but discouraged by the fact that most of what I had ever heard (from feminists/"women's resources") was that reporting the rape to police was comparable to being raped again and that it wouldn't matter anyway because prosecution rarely happened.
    In a decent mindset I would have been able to see through that bullshit, but after having just gone through something so traumatizing that had left me scared, it just fed into the fear.

    And I know for a fact I'm not the only one person who has ever done that. I mean, I'm definitely not the only person who chosen not to report a rape or assault because an overwhelming number of individuals have made it seem like it would be horrifying, dehumanizing, and pointless.

    And feminists seem to focus on the fact that it would be fruitless and traumatizing -- rather than push people to at least try to prosecute their rapist(s) or put on file what happened, in an effort to establish a pattern of behaviour.

    It's a disgusting mindset and I'm glad someone was able to (more eloquently) highlight the issue with it.

  7. Seattle folks will vote on Initiative 124 next month.

    Among other things, if it passes and a hotel worker simply accuses a guest, under penalty of perjury, of sexually harassing or assaulting her (or him), the hotel must keep the guest away for at least three years. (They may or may not also have to eject him [or her] immediately).

    1. Him or "HER"?
      Honestly, we all know this will never be used on a female, only BY a female. Gender neutral laws are written that way just to get passed but everyone knows in application they are written DIRECTLY at men, and used exclusively on men, by men.
      And we allow this insanity to continue...

  8. Hello , lovers of cricket welcome to our fantasy cricket application means fantasypower11 which is provide you online cricket information
    any time to know all cricket match online ball to ball and over to over play cricket online.
    online cricket games


Commenting policy:

All comments are welcome here. I refuse to censor points of view that differ from my own.

I recognize that I may be challenging the deep-seated beliefs of some people, and perhaps stirring up emotions in others. However, I would ask:

- if you care to respond to anything that I have said, please do not simply link to or quote some statistic. Do not simply regurgitate things you have been told are true. Think about what I am saying. Respond with an argument. Offer something from your personal observations, and explain to me how you feel your statistic is connected to your experience.

- If you wish to be part of a discussion, try not to dismiss what I or a another commenter says out of hand. Yes, that means that some lines of thought or ideologies may not stand up to scrutiny (perhaps even my own).

- Remember, ad hominem attacks diminish everyone involved. If you want to criticize anything, do so passionately and directly - but debate is about attacking ideas, not people.

Have at you!