My cite, which goes into a little more detail about the same numbers, includes the following comment from the author of the study:
Are we clear now?
As I said earlier, I think the Duke case is a crock of shit. Since we’re agreed on that, perhaps we can quit relying on it for everything in this thread? There are situations in which reporting delays are problematic, but I don’t think they’re a problem in and of themselves.
I don’t see why I should have to guess about what you are referring to. I’ve referred to statistics in more than one post in this thread. How hard would it be to refer to the “Columbia Article” or the “Kamin Study”?
But to answer your question, no, there’s no particular reason. IIRC, my original point was, in substance, that there are a large number of false rape accusations. I was asked for references, which I provided.
If you want to debate my original point, fine. But first tell me your position.
In a thread about false rape accusations, the Duke case is extremely apropos.
I’ve linked to one (1) article, and I thought it was very clear which study (posted by you) that it dealt with… Unless you’re just posting statistics without reading them, I don’t know why any guesswork was involved.
But my cite demonstrated that some of your cites aren’t that reliable, and also addressed the point that it’s hard to come by unbiased stats on false rape reports in the first place.
That doesn’t mean it’s a good example for every point you want to illustrate. She made the rape report under suspicious circumstances, but it’s not the delay that makes them suspicious.
Sorry for the slight hijack: aren’t there forensic doctors / specialists who examine the victim for traces of rape afterwards? Do they conclusively offer proof that someone has or hasn’t been raped?
For a group of such intelligent, ignorance-fighting people, I really am quite astounded at the level of casual misogyny and rape-culture apologetics on display here. In any thread that even remotely touches on this issue, the assumption seems to be that all women are liars, and if they did get raped, well, it was their fault. And yet you wonder why women might be reluctant to report.
There are, but the sorts of physical findings they could report would most likely be, at best, “consistent with” sexual assault, in most cases. I doubt anyone could turn those findings into conclusive proof.
Forensic evidence and a rape exam can conclusively rebut the first defense, and now with DNA on the scene, are probative with respect to the third. But if the claim is that there was consensual sex, then the factor becomes what sort of bruising, tearing, or bleeding is observable. The worse the injuries are, the harder it is to claim consent. Even ordinary sexual intercourse can cause some minor chafing and bruising. Some couples like rougher sex, and that’s often the claim of an accused rapist using the consent defense to explain minor injuries. Obviously, the more serious the injuries, the weaker the “rough sex” explanation sounds.
What thread are your reading? Certainly not this one. One poster is goig on about a high incidence of false rape reports, but even that poster isn’t saying “all women are liars” and he certainly isn’t saying “it was their fault”. Can you quote some of these posts that are leading you to your conclusions? I don’t see them.
Since you apparently are revisiting this thread, Bricker, could you confirm that the conclusion I eventually reached is correct? The point of your OP is that saying women never lie about rape is wrong? That’s it?
And can you respond to my post #40, while you’re at it. I think I’m the only one, other than Hamlet, to address your assertion that any alleged rape that wasn’t filmed would end up being prosecuted just like the Duke case.
For every false rape accusation that gets reported to the authorities, there are probably dozens of cases where a woman tells people she was raped but never takes the step of making a false report to the police (probably because she knows investigation will prove her lie). I’ve seen so many people have their lives ruined because some spiteful or jealous bitch will start telling people she was raped just because she’s mad at somebody.
But other than that, kinda sorta… yes. The problem is that no one really says, “Women never lie about rape.” But in a discussion, they are likely to say, “Why would she lie?” as though that’s a useful question to judge the truth of her complaint.
So one of my two points was to say: “Why would she lie?” is not a useful question to ask to prove that she’s not lying.
If you take “why would she lie” as “she wouldn’t lie”, you have a point, it is not a useful question. Heck, it’s not even a question. But if you’re saying that questioning a person’s motive to lie is not useful, well, I’ll just point you back to my post here, and ask for a response.
Do you see a difference in your inflammatory OP and what you’re saying now? Why post an OP with that kind of unsubstantiated conclusion?
Not being an idiot, I have never disputed that they are made. What I have said is “what’s a large number?” You came into this thread disputing some points in the rape myth article, but I think those points were basically true.
Could you restate it? I don’t know what timeline you’re proposing.
I cited more than one “rape myth article.” Which one are you referring to?
For the third time:
In the Duke rape case, if it came out that the accuser had called 911 and reported a rape 5 minutes before her encounter with the police, do you think that would help the prosecution’s case?
I didn’t ask you to write it again. I asked you what you were actually saying. Are you proposing an example like the Duke accuser, who was already in the hospital for hours? Are you talking about a woman who never mentioned it to friends and only started talking about it before seeing the police? I don’t know where you’re going with it.
That’s simply false. I quoted more than one article that used the words"myth" and “rape” a lot. Again, why not simply say the “Vachss Article” rather than lazily waive your hands and expect people to understand?
Yes. I am asking you the following:
If it turned out that the Duke rape accuser had first reported an alleged rape shortly before her encounter with the police (rather than after), would that fact help the prosecution’s case?
I don’t see how I can make the question any clearer. If you don’t understand it, there’s no need to discuss things any further.
I asked you what you were actually saying. Are you proposing an example like the Duke accuser, who was already in the hospital for hours? Are you talking about a woman who never mentioned it to friends and only started talking about it before seeing the police? I don’t know where you’re going with it.