# Enough from the defenders of rapists already **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 23, 2014, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392 "2014-11-23T05:26:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 36
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/701 "2014-12-19T13:21:46Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Look Dr. Evil, it isn’t about whether the chicks will lay me. It’s that evil people have no right to hand women drugs, tell them to relax and them rape them while they are unconscious. It’s my intent to be a liability to your cause. It’s okay with me if the ladies don’t give it up. Lev is just using a standard misogynist Men’s Rights meme. It’s futile to argue with it. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/702 "2014-12-19T16:33:39Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > This looks like one of those conversations where someone says they picked a card out of a deck and it was the jack of clubs and they say “Aha! There’s only a 1 in 52 chance you’d pick the jack of clubs. I don’t believe you because it’s so unlikely!” I was thinking about this thread this morning and realized something else about the raping a prostitute conversation. Well, two things, really. 1. For people who are trying to give a lot of weight to statistics, who is more likely to be raped, a nun or a prostitute? Saying you’re more likely to believe the nun appears to suggest a nun is more likely to be raped. But we know that prostitutes are raped pretty frequently, so if you’re claiming it’s all about the probabilities, shouldn’t you believe the prostitute? 2. Any time a woman is raped, people will start talking about all the things she did wrong. She shouldn’t have been out at night, dressed in skimpy clothes, drinking or using drugs, alone with strange men, leading them on, flaunting themselves in public. That’s why women get raped, according to this line of reasoning. And yet when we have women who likely do some or all of these behaviors, suddenly they aren’t more likely to be raped at all. It’s a mystery. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/703 "2014-12-19T16:38:26Z")
It’s only a mystery if you don’t understand concepts like relative probabilities. Suppose a person engages in an activity which raises the likelihood that she was raped by a factor of 3 and raises the likelihood that she engaged in consensual sex by a factor of 5. To the extent that the question is whether the sex was consensual or not (which is sometimes though not always the case) the overall likelihood that the sex was consensual is increased and the likelihood that it was coerced decreased. But in absolute terms she is increasing the likelihood that she’ll be raped. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/704 "2014-12-19T16:47:32Z")
And, naturally, increasing the absolute likelihood that she was just asking for it. I mean, come on, look at how she’s dressed. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/705 "2014-12-19T17:17:50Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > It’s only a mystery if you don’t understand concepts like relative probabilities. > > Suppose a person engages in an activity which raises the likelihood that she was raped by a factor of 3 and raises the likelihood that she engaged in consensual sex by a factor of 5. To the extent that the question is whether the sex was consensual or not (which is sometimes though not always the case) the overall likelihood that the sex was consensual is increased and the likelihood that it was coerced decreased. But in absolute terms she is increasing the likelihood that she’ll be raped. I don’t understand how this works – how are consensual sex and rape related? I don’t see how engaging in consensual sex affects in any way the likelihood of being raped. If you’re just talking about the statistical chances a given sexual encounter is rape or consensual, then I guess I see what you mean, but I don’t see how that’s relevant in any real-world situation. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/706 "2014-12-19T17:19:48Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > 1. Any time a woman is raped, people will start talking about all the things she did wrong. She shouldn’t have been out at night, dressed in skimpy clothes, drinking or using drugs, alone with strange men, leading them on, flaunting themselves in public. That’s why women get raped, according to this line of reasoning. And yet when we have women who likely do some or all of these behaviors, suddenly they aren’t more likely to be raped at all. > > It’s a mystery. Yes, the absolute number of times that a prostitute is raped is greater than the average woman. But the absolute number of times that she has engaged in consensual sex is astronomically greater than the average woman. This stuff is simple, and I contend that your bias towards believing accusers has made you forget such basic things. The only way that you get to the prostitute v. nun accusation as being equal is by saying that there is a non-zero probability that the nun engaged in consensual sex and that there was a non-zero probability that the prostitute was raped, then you have possible=possible so then both claims are equally valid. There are many degrees of possible. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/707 "2014-12-19T17:53:09Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Yes, the absolute number of times that a prostitute is raped is greater than the average woman. But the absolute number of times that she has engaged in consensual sex is astronomically greater than the average woman. How are the two related? Why are they relevant to each other? > [@](#): > > This stuff is simple, and I contend that your bias towards believing accusers has made you forget such basic things. The only way that you get to the prostitute v. nun accusation as being equal is by saying that there is a non-zero probability that the nun engaged in consensual sex and that there was a non-zero probability that the prostitute was raped, then you have possible=possible so then both claims are equally valid. > > There are many degrees of possible. Such statistics can be twisted nearly any way imaginable. If we assume that a prostitute is more likely to be raped than a nun on any given day, then one way to “use” that statistics is to assume that a prostitute’s assertion of rape is more likely to be true than a nun’s. I don’t think that’s a good way to approach it – and the same goes for the reverse assumption. ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [December 19, 2014, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/708 "2014-12-19T20:12:42Z")
Just a thought I was having about the relationship between drug use and dishonesty. I don’t know a terrible lot about the behavior of drug addicts, but it seems to me that any dishonesty would be directly related to scoring more drugs. I would presume that the vast majority of bad behavior on the part of a drug addicted person would be so they could get more drugs. I’m not really sure how a prostitute lying about a rape would help her get more drugs, therefore I’m not convinced drug addict = more willingness to lie about rape is really a logical conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/heffalump_and_roo/32/7691_2.png) [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Heffalump_and_Roo)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 9:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/709 "2014-12-20T09:15:22Z")
Apologies to anyone who feels this cut and post style of argumentation is hard to read. I agree. But since **iiandyiiii** uses this style, I’m continuing his use of this style. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > No, I addressed each claim, several posts ago (and probably several pages before). If you think any of the assertions by Johnson are questionable, please specify and I’ll tell you what I think. When all your thoughts about inconsistencies are just handwaves about how you think that everything can be explained by hyperbole, poor memory or anything is possible, it’s hardly worth putting out a point so you can dismiss it with a handwave. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Nope. Nope is not a point or an argument. Nuh-uh and yuh-huh aren’t really debate arguments. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’m saying that none of the supposed inconsistencies pointed out in Johnson’s story were actually inconsistencies. There may well be inconsistencies in other stories. Name some. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I always said hyperbole was a possibility. A totally normal and common type of hyperbole – using the word “completely” to mean “extremely”. Then answer the question about whether hyperbole (an exaggeration) should or can be used to accuse people of serious crimes, with the knowledge that hyperbole or exaggeration can distort the truth. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I didn’t go back and forth. I always said it might have been hyperbole. If you think I didn’t, please provide a cite in which I said “it’s not hyperbole”, or something very similar. If the hyperbole is of this type – “completely” being used to mean “extremely” (like “I was completely exhausted”), then it’s an entirely normal, reasonable, and trustworthy use of language. Yes, I grant that you haven’t denied hyperbole altogether. However, when I asked if it was OK with you for accusers of serious crimes to use hyperbole or exaggeration, you posted this to sidestep the question: > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t know if it was hyperbole If you don’t know if it’s hyperbole, why bring it up except to handwave away an inconsistency. When you’re asked if hyperbole should be used to accuse people of serious crimes, you’re unsure if it’s hyperbole. It can’t be both. Either you can’t use the excuse of hyperbole to handwave away an inconsistency or using hyperbole in accusations of serious crimes is OK with you. This is not an important point in the discussion. But your argumentation isn’t very cohesive, not just on this point, but it’s indicative of many of your arguments. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Start a new thread if you want (it’s been discussed a lot before, I’m pretty sure). As to the specific point, it probably varies with each individual situation. If someone claims they were raped, their individual story and circumstance would have to be examined. > > Consent, as I understand it, is an unambiguous signal, whether in words or physical actions, that the sexual activity is desired and the partner wants to continue. Since you’re the person who brought it up in answer to my post in this thread, I’m looking for an answer to what you mean in the context of this thread. What parts of the story would be questioned in the examination of the circumstances if someone claims rape? What circumstances could be considered inconsistencies? As some people have claimed in this thread, someone can accuse another of rape when they don’t even know they’ve been raped. Do you agree with this? If so, in your mind, did the person who later claimed rape decide after the fact that their signal was ambiguous? How would the person on the other side of that signal have known that the signal went from unambiguous consent to ambiguous consent? (I’m going to stipulate here that unambiguous lack of consent is not present. In other words, the accuser didn’t clearly say no or was unconscious and couldn’t do so.) > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Yes, but this one doesn’t. Are you really saying it’s distorting the truth to use “completely” like “extremely”? Have you never said “this completely wore me out…” or “I’m completely full…”, or “I’m completely satisfied…” etc.? I’m saying that exaggeration can distort the truth. In this case, I think it’s not unreasonable to question the story based on her exaggeration of going completely limp. There’s a whole discussion in another place on whether this could have happened the way she described it. It’s an inconsistency in her story that leaves people with questions. It may not leave you with questions, but you’re also not explaining it away very well by claiming hyperbole because that creates more problems as well. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > It’s not reasonable in this case. Of course this is my opinion, and of course I think different opinions on this particular thing are unreasonable. How do you feel? Does the possibility of using “completely” to mean “extremely” cause you to question the veracity of a claim? Do you think that reasonable people can’t differ in a case where the facts are very limited and sketchy, based on an old memory? Is there some reason that this case is so clear-cut to you that you think that reasonable people can’t reasonably have differing opinions about it? It’s baffling to me that you think that you can have the only reasonable opinion about something so controversial and think that everyone else’s opinion is unreasonable. I guess there’s some inconsistency in that I don’t understand your opinion about not thinking anyone else’s opinion is reasonable, but I don’t think those inconsistencies are the same. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The argument happened several posts ago. You can dig it up, if you want. I directly challenged and criticized (and refuted, in my view) each one of **SA** ’s claims about Johnson’s story. Or you can bring up the actual points you think are worthy of discussion. So can you. I doubt you even remember what point you were making because your style is just to cut up a post and rapid-fire respond to what’s right in front of you. But since the arguments are based on past arguments and have context, you don’t take those into account. That’s one of the reasons your argumentation style lacks cohesion. One of the reasons I went back and forth like this with you is because I knew that you would lose track of the argument. But that just points out that you aren’t really arguing the point. You’re just cutting up someone’s argument and responding against it without looking at context. > [@iiandyiiii](#): > > The quote I was responding to asserted (indirectly) that prostitutes are much less trustworthy when it comes to claims of rape. Your cite would indicate that prostitutes are frequent victims of rape, which would imply that such a claim by a prostitute would actually be pretty likely. I suppose it’s possible that prostitutes claim rape so often that they dilute these claims, but I’ve read no evidence that this is the case. Thus I believe it’s reasonable to treat a prostitute’s claim of rape the same as any other claim of rape, all other things being mostly equal. This is one of those arguments that got convoluted in all the back and forth and misinterpretations. I disagree with your interpretation. If you go back to **jtgain** ’s original argument, the argument is that a prostitute’s testimony would be less reliable about an accusation of rape. My cite indicated that prostitutes are often victims of **unreported** rape. It’s likely that the reason that the rapes are unreported is because of the problem with the reliability of the testimony. **Starving Artist** added the point that a prostitute’s testimony may have the added problem of reliability because of the lying involved in drug use. I was dubious about the connection of drug use and prostitution, so I looked it up and found studies that made that connection. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/710 "2014-12-20T12:22:02Z")
So, if she is lying, that would mean Cosby didn’t do it, right? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/711 "2014-12-20T13:07:08Z")
> [@Heffalump\_and\_Roo](#): > > When all your thoughts about inconsistencies are just handwaves about how you think that everything can be explained by hyperbole, poor memory or anything is possible, it’s hardly worth putting out a point so you can dismiss it with a handwave. This is not an accurate description of my refutations. > [@](#): > > Nope is not a point or an argument. Nuh-uh and yuh-huh aren’t really debate arguments. Okay, then substitute “I think you are wrong on this”. > [@](#): > > Name some. No thank you, but if you think you know some, I’d be happy to take a look. > [@](#): > > Then answer the question about whether hyperbole (an exaggeration) should or can be used to accuse people of serious crimes, with the knowledge that hyperbole or exaggeration can distort the truth. Already answered (though this is a different and strange re-phrasing of your question, I think) – if it’s the sort of hyperbole that may have been used here… “completely” meaning “extremely”… then no, it’s not a distortion of the truth. > [@](#): > > Yes, I grant that you haven’t denied hyperbole altogether. However, when I asked if it was OK with you for accusers of serious crimes to use hyperbole or exaggeration, you posted this to sidestep the question: > > If you don’t know if it’s hyperbole, why bring it up except to handwave away an inconsistency. When you’re asked if hyperbole should be used to accuse people of serious crimes, you’re unsure if it’s hyperbole. I answered the question – if it’s this sort of hyperbole, it’s not a distortion, and it’s okay for anyone to use. Other sorts may not be – other sorts may actually be distortion of the truth. > [@](#): > > It can’t be both. Either you can’t use the excuse of hyperbole to handwave away an inconsistency or using hyperbole in accusations of serious crimes is OK with you. It depends on the hyperbole. > [@](#): > > This is not an important point in the discussion. But your argumentation isn’t very cohesive, not just on this point, but it’s indicative of many of your arguments. Obviously I disagree. > [@](#): > > Since you’re the person who brought it up in answer to my post in this thread, I’m looking for an answer to what you mean in the context of this thread. > > What parts of the story would be questioned in the examination of the circumstances if someone claims rape? It’s fine to question any part of someone’s story. The questions may be stupid, but I have no problem with looking at all aspects of a story to see if it’s reasonable. > [@](#): > > What circumstances could be considered inconsistencies? Anything that’s not consistent with the story as a whole or individual parts. Not sure how to answer this. > [@](#): > > As some people have claimed in this thread, someone can accuse another of rape when they don’t even know they’ve been raped. Do you agree with this? If someone believes that they may have been raped, then it’s certainly appropriate to talk about it. That’s up to the individual. I’m fine with anyone choosing to talk about their experiences, whether with or without the police involved, or with or without naming those involved. > [@](#): > > If so, in your mind, did the person who later claimed rape decide after the fact that their signal was ambiguous? It’s possible. It’s also possible they weren’t conscious during the rape, or many other explanations as to why they might have changed their mind. > [@](#): > > How would the person on the other side of that signal have known that the signal went from unambiguous consent to ambiguous consent? (I’m going to stipulate here that unambiguous lack of consent is not present. In other words, the accuser didn’t clearly say no or was unconscious and couldn’t do so.) They would have to use human judgment. They would have to analyze the situation to determine if unambiguous consent is present. If they’re not sure, then it’s probably not present. > [@](#): > > I’m saying that exaggeration can distort the truth. I think it can to – but I don’t think it’s reasonable to believe there was distortion in this case based on the use of the word “completely”. > [@](#): > > In this case, I think it’s not unreasonable to question the story based on her exaggeration of going completely limp. I believe it is unreasonable. I believe this is an incredibly common way to use the word “completely”. > [@](#): > > There’s a whole discussion in another place on whether this could have happened the way she described it. It’s an inconsistency in her story that leaves people with questions. It may not leave you with questions, but you’re also not explaining it away very well by claiming hyperbole because that creates more problems as well. I don’t believe it’s an inconsistency at all – I think it’s a totally normal and very common way that the word “completely” is used. > [@](#): > > Do you think that reasonable people can’t differ in a case where the facts are very limited and sketchy, based on an old memory? Of course they can. > [@](#): > > Is there some reason that this case is so clear-cut to you that you think that reasonable people can’t reasonably have differing opinions about it? Because it involves an accusation of drugging related to rape against a popular and (formerly) widely respected figure, and the word “completely” is not a significant part of the accusation. I don’t believe that those focusing on the word “completely” are looking at this objectively – rather, I believe that anyone focused on such a tiny part of her story is already negatively inclined towards any of these accusations. > [@](#): > > It’s baffling to me that you think that you can have the only reasonable opinion about something so controversial and think that everyone else’s opinion is unreasonable. I guess there’s some inconsistency in that I don’t understand your opinion about not thinking anyone else’s opinion is reasonable, but I don’t think those inconsistencies are the same. Plenty of opinions are reasonable – but the opinion that because she may have used (may!!!) “completely” to mean “extremely” her account is less trustworthy is not a reasonable opinion. That is an extreme nitpick that is indicative that someone is just looking for reasons to disbelieve Cosby’s accusers, or rape/sex assault accusers in general. > [@](#): > > So can you. I doubt you even remember what point you were making because your style is just to cut up a post and rapid-fire respond to what’s right in front of you. I like this style – this way I can address every question and every point. I’m not sure how else I could do so. > [@](#): > > But since the arguments are based on past arguments and have context, you don’t take those into account. That’s one of the reasons your argumentation style lacks cohesion. One of the reasons I went back and forth like this with you is because I knew that you would lose track of the argument. But that just points out that you aren’t really arguing the point. You’re just cutting up someone’s argument and responding against it without looking at context. I’ve always (this is a use of the word “always” to mean “repeatedly and very commonly throughout my time on the Dope”) used this style – I don’t know how else I’d address every point and every question of an argument. I find other styles of discussion and argument much harder to follow. I don’t believe I’ve lost track of the argument. If you think there are things I’ve missed, please bring them up. You’ve made multiple accusations of this sort without actually providing the context or any other cites to past posts that you seem to believe are so vital. If you think I’m making these mistakes, show me – why should I just take your word for it? > [@](#): > > This is one of those arguments that got convoluted in all the back and forth and misinterpretations. > > I disagree with your interpretation. If you go back to **jtgain** ’s original argument, the argument is that a prostitute’s testimony would be less reliable about an accusation of rape. Right. > [@](#): > > My cite indicated that prostitutes are often victims of **unreported** rape. It’s likely that the reason that the rapes are unreported is because of the problem with the reliability of the testimony. I suppose this is one way to put it – I think it’s likely that the reason the rapes are unreported is that prostitutes find the police unhelpful and less inclined to assist them in investigating their accusations. > [@](#): > > **Starving Artist** added the point that a prostitute’s testimony may have the added problem of reliability because of the lying involved in drug use. I was dubious about the connection of drug use and prostitution, so I looked it up and found studies that made that connection. This is probably true – drug use is used in court to cast doubt on someone’s testimony. But this doesn’t make me any less inclined to consider a prostitute’s report of rape as possibly true as compared to any other reporting a rape. In my view, all reports of rape should be considered with the same possibility of truthfulness until evidence or inconsistencies are found that make the report less likely – and I don’t think this would include the occupation or even drug use of the one reporting it. The actual content and circumstances of the report must be looked at. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/712 "2014-12-20T13:11:25Z")
I’ve never heard this criticism of the cut and past style of post – I thought this was the easiest and most coherent way to both read and to make an argument on the Dope. So I made a [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=17992312#post17992312) in ATMB about it. Let’s see what others think. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/713 "2014-12-20T17:06:33Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Yes, the absolute number of times that a prostitute is raped is greater than the average woman. But the absolute number of times that she has engaged in consensual sex is astronomically greater than the average woman. > > This stuff is simple, and I contend that your bias towards believing accusers has made you forget such basic things. The only way that you get to the prostitute v. nun accusation as being equal is by saying that there is a non-zero probability that the nun engaged in consensual sex and that there was a non-zero probability that the prostitute was raped, then you have possible=possible so then both claims are equally valid. > > There are many degrees of possible. She is not forgetting anything. You are making an argument that makes no fucking sense whatsoever. The idea that past numbers of consensual sex has anything to do with the likelihood you were raped is fucking insane. The reason we are having a hard time refuting it is that we cannot comprehend the insane reasoning it takes for you to get there. The number of times you have done X with consent is unrelated to the number of times you’ve done X without consent. Someone already pointed out the huge fallacy in that argument by changing it to not have to do with prostitutes, which seemed to be causing a mental block in you. The fact that you regularly consensually give money to people is of no relevance in determining whether you have been robbed. The fact that the alleged thief can prove he has your money, thus proving money exchanged hands, does not make it less likely he stole it from you. His having your money is consistent with both scenarios, so it is completely irrelevant. Proof that sex happened is consistent with both being raped and not being raped. It is thus irrelevant, and not evidence either way. The fact that you have bought a lot of things is consistent with both scenarios. Whether he stole from you or not, you still would have bought a lot of things. The fact that a prostitute has had consensual sex quite often is consistent with both scenarios. Whether she was raped or not, she still would have had consensual sex quite often. I can take it further. The fact that you have purchased a lot of black market items would still be consistent with both scenarios. Whether you were stolen from or not, you still would have purchased a lot of black market items. The fact that a prostitute has illegally exchanged money for sex is consistent with both scenarios. Whether she was raped or not, she still would have often had sex for money illegally. The only thing I can think you are arguing is that a prostitute is more likely to lie and say that she was raped than admit she had sex for money. But that’s stupid, as proving rape is difficult. A prostitute, on the other hand, could say that she had consensual sex, and make it where the prosecution has to prove she didn’t. No matter how you spin it, the fact that a prostitute has had a lot of consensual sex is irrelevant to whether she’s been raped. And even though I think I’ve covered everything you and **F-P** have argued, I still don’t know I actually touched what you were saying. Because you are arguing in an uncharacteristic way that makes no sense. Rather than defend your argument, you just said that the other person was on a different plane of thinking than you. Well, yeah, we are–that’s consistent with your not making sense. And, yes, **Roo** (sorry, can’t call you **Heff** –too weird), the drugs thing could be relevant. But that was **Starving Artist** ’s addition to the argument that no one else is making. As far as I can tell, both F-P and jtgain are arguing that it is the number of times the prostitute has had consensual sex that is relevant. And, frankly, I find that more insane that **Starving Artist** ’s paper towel thing. At least I could see where he was coming from in that, even if it showed a horrible lack of awareness. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/714 "2014-12-20T17:23:50Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Yes, the absolute number of times that a prostitute is raped is greater than the average woman. Indeed. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/715 "2014-12-20T17:39:52Z")
Another problem I noticed while fixing breakfast. You are starting from an incomplete premise. The premise is not “given that sex has occurred.” It is “given that sex has occurred **and** it is claimed to be non-consensual.” That’s the stickler. The fact that a prostitute has had more consensual sex has no bearing on whether they are more likely to allege rape. Yes. it is trivially true that, if you were to list all sexual encounters a prostitute has had, and then pick one at random, it would more likely be a consensual encounter. Just like it’s true that, if you were to list all the times your money had gotten into someone else’s hands, and then randomly pick one of those times, it is trivially more likely that you gave the money consensually. Neither scenario has any relevance to whether a particular encounter was consensual. This is what is basic and being ignored in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/716 "2014-12-20T21:12:49Z")
[Ann Coulter on rape.](http://www.salon.com/2014/12/18/ann_coulter_women_who_say_they_are_raped_are_just_girls_trying_to_get_attention/) ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2014, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/717 "2014-12-20T22:34:26Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > And, frankly, I find that more insane that **Starving Artist** ’s paper towel thing. At least I could see where he was coming from in that, even if it showed a horrible lack of awareness. I concur. I’ve stayed out of the discussion for several days now due to a combination of some RL stuff getting in the way a little more than usual AND _not even knowing how the hell to begin_ with this. “Different plane of thinking” indeed. You (in this and your subsequent post) have put all the thoughts I wanted to have down in writing, so thanks for that. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2014, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/718 "2014-12-21T08:12:46Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Heck, according to a lot of MRA types, whores are theohonest women. Thread’s going like a gang of women discussing a new slinky body spandex suit designed to show their coochy and totally blaming men for seeing their coochy. It’s so easy to be a WRA type these days. It’s like a sport. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2014, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/719 "2014-12-21T08:47:50Z")
[Apropos Beverly Johnson.](https://tv.yahoo.com/news/bill-cosby-attorney-says-cnn-decided-not-interview-215347571.html) (With a side dish of media bias) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2014, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392/720 "2014-12-21T13:10:35Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > [Apropos Beverly Johnson.](https://tv.yahoo.com/news/bill-cosby-attorney-says-cnn-decided-not-interview-215347571.html) (With a side dish of media bias) Good for you! You actually found something that may actually cast some sort of doubt (if the report is true) on Johnson’s story. Unlike all the other crap you spouted. But good for you! I’m proud of you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392.md?page=35) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/enough-from-the-defenders-of-rapists-already/705392.md?page=37)