# The double standards around rape and sexual assault **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 12, 2016, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695 "2016-07-12T00:10:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 10
**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:** [July 14, 2016, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/181 "2016-07-14T23:54:45Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > Then please explain to me , given that the accuser has by definition _already_ said she didn’t consent, what would be the purpose of bringing up her sexual history except to convince the jury she is lying when she says she didn’t consent. And if it is to convince the jury that she did consent, that is _still_ convincing the jury that she is lying when she says she didn’t. If the identification of the rapist is in dispute, that could be an honest mistake and providing evidence that it was some other guy wouldn’t implicate the victim’s credibility. But a person can’t make an honest mistake about her own consent or lack of it. She’s either lying or she isn’t. She’s either lying or she isn’t and the accused is either lying or he isn’t. One type of relevant evidence is which of the two has more credibility. Another type of evidence is the plausibility of the stories they’re telling. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Dude, IT’S YOUR HYPOTHETICAL. When I didn’t take it entirely literally, you got all sneery and supercilious about it. To anyone arguing in good faith, when someone says “in Case B, you can prove with absolute certainty that the accuser liked nothing better than to have sex with people exactly like the defendant and in those circumstances” it’s pretty clear what it means. > [@](#): > > If they’re not 100% identical, the question then becomes, if Molly has had sex 100 times under similar circumstances and hasn’t made a rape accusation, what’s the difference this time? The likeliest difference is that this time involved rape. That could be one explanation. There could be other explanations. I can’t imagine even you would try to deny that. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > YOur hypothetical is now functionally equivalent to, “If we know for sure that Joanne was raped, and we have very very good reason to believe Molly was raped, who is it likelier was raped?” Your removal of identical circumstances for Molly introduces some uncertainty in her case, whereas your hypothetical limited omniscience about Joanne’s still has no uncertainty in it. So it’s not at all a useful analogy. As above it’s not an analogy. (I don’t think you know what an analogy is.) But in any event, the point here wasn’t that we know for sure that Joanne was raped. It’s how we know she was raped. And it’s because we know that the only alternative - that she consented to sex - is completely implausible. The point being that the plausibility of the alternative-to-rape has a bearing on the likelihood of it having been rape. In any event, I think we’ve around the mulberry bush too many times by now. Unless something new comes up, I think I’m done with this. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/182 "2016-07-14T23:58:58Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > To anyone arguing in good faith, when someone says “in Case B, you can prove with absolute certainty that the accuser liked nothing better than to have sex with people exactly like the defendant and in those circumstances” it’s pretty clear what it means. Again, my first attempt at doing anything with your terrible hypothetical was to assume that it made some sort of sense. You were super-sneery about that. Now, when I interpret it strictly, you accuse me of dishonesty. We know that’s because you’re a useless dumbshit, which I’ll remind you of going forward when you accuse me of dishonesty :). > [@](#): > > (I don’t think you know what an analogy is.) Bad word choice. In my defense, I admit when I’m wrong. > [@](#): > > But in any event, the point here wasn’t that we know for sure that Joanne was raped. It’s how we know she was raped. And it’s because we know that the only alternative - that she consented to sex - is completely implausible. The point being that the plausibility of the alternative-to-rape has a bearing on the likelihood of it having been rape. Right, we know that because of a fantasy omniscience. In the real world without that, the HYPOTHETICAL is useless. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/183 "2016-07-14T23:59:36Z")
I wonder if actuaries ever argue with medical examiners. Actuary: Look, this table says that the man on the slab was most likely to have died of a heart attack. You have to present that evidence at trial. Medical Examiner: It doesn’t matter what was more likely before he died – I did the tests and he was poisoned. A: But make sure you tell the jury how likely it was that he was to have died of a heart attack! He had family history and habits that would have made it an absolute certainty! ME: Cyanide. He was killed because he was administered cyanide – the contents of his stomach even make it clear HOW it was administered. It was in the last meal he ate – looks like it was duck in a sherry sauce. A: Likelihood is EVIDENCE! Make sure the jury knows! ---
**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:** [July 15, 2016, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/184 "2016-07-15T00:08:31Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > We know that’s because you’re a useless dumbshit, which I’ll remind you of going forward when you accuse me of dishonesty :). Sounds like you think I’ll have such opportunities going forward. So do I. Based, of course, on your prior history. You’ve been very promiscuous in this regard. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2016, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/185 "2016-07-15T00:11:21Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Sounds like you think I’ll have such opportunities going forward. Well, of course you will. Everyone has the same opportunities. The difference is that you’ll take them. Not because I’m dishonest, but because you are, wait for it, a useless dumbshit :). Again, it’s about character. ---
**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:** [July 15, 2016, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/186 "2016-07-15T13:17:24Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > I wonder if actuaries ever argue with medical examiners. > > Actuary: Look, this table says that the man on the slab was most likely to have died of a heart attack. You have to present that evidence at trial. > Medical Examiner: It doesn’t matter what was more likely before he died – I did the tests and he was poisoned. > A: But make sure you tell the jury how likely it was that he was to have died of a heart attack! He had family history and habits that would have made it an absolute certainty! > ME: Cyanide. He was killed because he was administered cyanide – the contents of his stomach even make it clear HOW it was administered. It was in the last meal he ate – looks like it was duck in a sherry sauce. > A: Likelihood is EVIDENCE! Make sure the jury knows! Also interesting to imagine raventhief arguing with some random non-moron. rn-m: Looks like a cloudy day, you might want to bring an umbrella. rt: Just because it’s a cloudy day that DOESN’T mean it’s going to rain. rn-m: Yeah, it might not. But the likelihood is high so it might be worth bringing one along. rt: Likelihood has NOTHING to do with it. Either it DEFINITELY rains or it DEFINITELY doesn’t rain. Did you ever see a 60% rain? Har har har. rn-m: Sure, just do your thing, bro. rt: You can’t imagine how FRUSTRATING it is for me to have to DEAL with people like you … > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Well, of course you will. Everyone has the same opportunities. The difference is that you’ll take them. Not because I’m dishonest, but because you are, wait for it, a useless dumbshit :). Works for me. But just out of idle curiosity, do you have some sort of shortcut key or macro which inserts the term “wait for it” at the tail end of snarky remarks? If not, you might want to consider it, considering the frequency with which you re-use that same prop. > [@](#): > > Again, it’s about character. Finally something we agree about. 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695.md?page=9)