Honestly, I doubt this. Based on what I have read on the internet, it seems like plenty of people were willing to take such an attitude towards the Duke Lacrosse victims.
I think it depends on the context. If these “tips,” are offered while characterizing (some) men as “whining” about the consequences of sex, then it’s reasonable for men to understand this as trivializing their legitimate concerns and grievances.
I think some supposed “she changed her mind the next morning” stories are probably clear rapes where the rapist just accused his victim of lying, but I also think there are at least some where there’s a horrible misunderstanding about what constitutes consent. I’m talking “She didn’t say ‘yes’ but she didn’t say ‘no’” situations. Back in post #12, Freudian Slit told this story:
From the woman’s perspective, she was threatened and raped. The man sounds like a creep, but from his perspective maybe he was innocently having sex with an unenthusiastic but willing partner. Without more details I don’t know whether this case would meet the legal standard for rape or not, but the man apparently thought he was innocent and may have wondered why the woman “changed her mind”.
I could be wrong but I do not think those are deemed “false” rape accusations. If a woman legitimately believed she was raped it is not a false accusation. It may not be legally a supportable accusation and she may lose (if she chooses to go forward) but it is not false as such either.
I believe from earlier on the false allegations were defined as ones that were proven to be false. Either the woman recanted or evidence unequivocally absolved the accused (e.g. DNA did not match, accused was 1,000 miles away at the time in front of a room of 1,000 people giving a speech, etc.) such that the accused absolutely could not have done it. That was my impression anyway.
The guy was convicted. The case turned on the fact he had his hand round her neck. She had drunk with him, and offered him a ride home. He had invited her up. She said no. He lived in an area she did not know, and it was very late at night. Faced with her refusal, he leant over and took her car keys from the ignition, telling her that he would not give them back unless she came up to his apartment.
The case still turned on the (admittedly light) choking involved. Absent that, the court made it very clear that there was not sufficient force to fulfill that prong of rape, despite the fact that they acknowledged a clear absence of consent.
It’s a Maryland case, State v. Rusk. I don’t have the citation handy, but I used it heavily in the law review note I wrote on this.
You know, I’d feel a lot worse now about having used the word “whining” if so many of the responses in this thread hadn’t said essentially “Since there’s no way to be SURE if a woman is a liar, there’s no reason for men to ever exercise any caution when it comes to choosing sexual partners.” But frankly, several (not all) of the men posting in this thread have only reaffirmed my previous belief that those who complain the loudest about the possibility of being falsely accused of rape are generally those who take the least responsibility for their own choices. I’ve been genuinely surprised that so many responses have claimed that exercising good judgment in a sexual situation is something that would require magical powers, or that there’s no way for a man to know if a woman has consented.
I take it my university’s freshman orientation (16 years ago for me) was unique? Because the sexual assault session all students were required to attend included tips for both. Unfortunately, the tips for men were so unrealistic and ridiculous they didn’t have much effect. A fine example was the presenter’s demonstration of how to ask a woman before you kissed her to ensure that there was no mistaking that you had received consent. The eye-rolling from all of the ladies in the audience at how completely dorky and unromantic the question came off pretty much guaranteed that no man in that room would ever consider asking such a question.
Generally speaking, the advice to avoid rape is much more sensible than the advice to avoid accusation. “Never put someone into a position of trust if you don’t want to have sex with that person” sounds like a reasonable bit of common sense. But “Never put someone that you do want to have sex with into a position of trust” is self-contradictory, as having sex with someone automatically puts them in a trusted position.
Oddly enough, the much maligned Antioch College code regarding this has proved very popular with the students there, who have voted to keep it in place.
Consent and caution on part of the man is essentially irrelevant; she can accuse him even if she does consent, or even if they never have sex, or even if he doesn’t even know her, or even if they’ve had sex a thousand times before. As has been said again and again, the primary motive is “spite and revenge”, not “he didn’t ask me enough times” or “I was drunk when he had sex with me”.
But that’s just what I’m saying. By having sex with someone you are to an extent putting your trust in them, so don’t choose to have sex with someone unless you are reasonably certain that they deserve that trust. Just because you want to have sex with someone is not in and of itself reason to trust them. It’s possible – and sometimes wise – to refuse to have sex with a desirable partner. If you don’t trust her then don’t do it.
But that has little to do with false accusations. They can be made by people you distrust and never had sex with. That might even be the motivation for them to do so.
Yes, and I do not regret it at all because Der Trihs alone has provided me with adequate proof that it was a perfectly appropriate description of the behavior of some (again, not all or even most) men. I don’t know when I last saw such an impressive display of whining.
In some alternate world my alternate self is perhaps feeling embarrassed that she dropped the “w-bomb” so early, and is making a humble apology for her use of such offensive language. But in this world, I’m actually a bit surprised at how very right I was. I honestly didn’t expect to see anyone to come right out and say that there’s nothing at all poor innocent men can do to protect themselves against wicked, wicked women so there’s no point in any man even trying to behave responsibly, but Der Trihs has shown me that there is a misogynist equivalent to the notorious claim that “all men are potential rapists”*.
Well, this thread has been a real eye-opener for me, but I think I’m done now. I’ve repeated myself enough, and there are perhaps other directions this thread can take. My apologies to the OP if things became too much about me and not enough about her original question.
*Just to be clear, I do not agree with this claim, except in the trivial sense that all PEOPLE are potential rapists.
And I never expected anything better than an attempt to label men who fear a false accusation “whiners”. You have consistently ignored the point that it doesn’t matter what the man does, because a woman can accuse him even if he’s never met her, much less had sex with her. What are your “precautions” actually supposed to achieve ?
That’s where some murkiness sets in (and why I’m more than a little skeptical about the stats). As I never tire of mentioning, I know women who were, to me, clearly raped, but either don’t truly consider it rape or do and don’t want to think of themselves as victims (e.g. one insisted on a condom then noticed the guy had removed it half way through and was still plowing away; one consented to vaginal intercourse only to be sodomized against her will). It is my belief that they could be convinced one way or the other– they could realize why they haven’t been able to have a relationship or stop shaking all year and press charges, or they could tell a cop shortly after then be talked out of it. And if some women don’t necessarily consider their rapes rapes, I can only imagine what the ‘men’ in question perceived the situation.
Sometimes I think it all boils down to the crazy notion of only having sex with people who really, really want to have sex with you. I am no puritan. I don’t mean that ‘special someone.’ I mean the guy who’s not drunk, or the girl who doesn’t need you to wear away at her with every layer of clothing. (Again, this doesn’t really affect these women who are out for revenge or whatever).
Yeah, I’ve heard stories like that, too, where the woman just convinces herself she wanted it, that it wasn’t rape even though she didn’t want to do it.
And yeah, like the story I mentioned, I’m sure that the guys in these situations didn’t think that what they did was rape, even though it certainly felt that way to the woman. I think that’s where a lot of the problems lie. From a guy’s point of view, he’s maybe a little forceful, but she never said no, so why is she suddenly pressing charges when she seemed fine last night. But from her point of view, it was clearly rape, just as much in the morning as it was the night it happened.
Again, I have no idea what your point is. As far as I can tell, you trivialized the legitimate concerns of men, and your justification for doing so is that somebody later challenged your trivialization.
Fine, so you don’t feel bad about it. I don’t really care, but it reminds me of people who repeatedly claim they are “not worried” about something.
None of this changes the fact that men have a legitimate concern about false rape accusations. Yes, it’s possible for a man to reduce those risks through careful conduct. Just like it’s possible to reduce the risk of just about any misfortune through careful conduct. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s a legitimate grievance.
I know I said I was out of here, but I wanted to acknowledge this. I think you’re the first man here who’s been willing to agree that it IS in fact possible for a man to reduce his risk by being careful. Thank you for being reasonable about it. I can agree that since even the most careful behavior cannot protect a man against every chance of false rape accusations, even the most careful man could still have some legitimate concerns.
But I did say I was done here, so that’s enough out of me. (This time I mean it!)
I can’t tell for sure whether posters here are male or female, but on the first page, whack-a-mole implicitly acknowledged this point:
But again, let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that it’s possible for a man to reduce his risk of being falsely accused if he is careful. Just like it’s possible to reduce the risk of just about any misfortune by being careful.
It still doesn’t follow that men who complain about false accusations are “whining,” i.e. it doesn’t follow that they do not have legitimate concerns.
Again I think you are conflating two things. My belief is that “false” accusations are ones that are patently false and not merely a difference of definition. “False” as in the accused quite literally did not or could not have committed the crime. That is very different from a case where sexual intercourse occurred and the two people disagree over what constituted consent. In the latter case I believe that does not get marked as “false” claim. Even if the law says in the end that rape did not occur that does not make the claim a false allegation.
I found the following which I think is about the most enlightening stats I have seen yet on this. It is for Canada so not strictly applicable to the US but nevertheless gives us a peak at some numbers dutifully compiled.
Personally I never really get the “gray areas” of consent at a gut level. I am one of those people who only has sex when it is abundantly clear my partner is totally on board for the action. There is no ambiguity whatsoever. When she is tearing my clothes off me faster than I can get hers off all seems well in my world view.
Certainly I have hoped for sex and not gotten lucky. Life is full of such disappointments. Never, not even remotely, have I pressed the issue. I don’t want to as I just do not get the point…at all. Sex with an unwilling or even reluctant partner is just bleh. I’d literally rather go home and surf for porn or something. But that’s just me I guess.