# 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:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**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, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/161 "2016-07-14T21:47:33Z")
> [@Barrett\_Bonden](#): > > I know my post is comparatively long, but given that I slogged through this entire thread, you might have tried reading it once or twice. > > What I just told you is no. No, that factor is not relevant. Unless you know the equation for the individual in question, you cannot infer anything by that single variable. And you do not know anyone’s equation; you probably don’t know your own. To the extent that you’re claiming that you can’t know it because there are also other factors involved - which quite frankly seems to be pretty clearly what you said - then my prior post stands. To the extent that you’re just asserting that it’s not relevant, accompanied by a bunch of what you seem to consider impressive-seeming pseudo-statistical jive, then obviously no response is necessary. ---
**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, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/162 "2016-07-14T21:50:31Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The general concept is that you’ve accepted that the a priori likelihood of consensual sex has a bearing on the plausibility of the claim that consensual sex has in fact taken place. No. The concept I’ve accepted is causality, which renders your post tautological. Make the circumstances even the tiniest bit different, and your analogy changes entirely. ---
**Author:** ![Barrett\_Bonden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@Barrett\_Bonden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barrett_Bonden)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/163 "2016-07-14T22:08:18Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > To the extent that you’re claiming that you can’t know it because there are also other factors involved - which quite frankly seems to be pretty clearly what you said - then my prior post stands. I’m sure that I saw you say that you understand statistics earlier in this thread. On what basis do you make this claim? Because you seem to be really missing the point. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > To the extent that you’re just asserting that it’s not relevant, accompanied by a bunch of what you seem to consider impressive-seeming pseudo-statistical jive, then obviously no response is necessary. Wait, was it because I called a factor **chi**? :rolleyes: Okay, let me translate this for you, since the points I made with obviously fake and silly statistical variables were too scary. > [@Barrett\_Bonden](#): > > Now, you can try to insist that you can STILL predict based on **x** , but for Person A’s _Will I Have Sex With You_ equation, that particular likelihood is influenced by **[chi / x]**. With your remarkable background in statistics, I am certain that you understand the relevance of that. **x** is in the denominator. This means that for Person A, the more people she has had sex with, the **less** likely she is to have sex in the future. > [@Barrett\_Bonden](#): > > Now, it turns out that Person B’s equation contains **[chi TIMES x]**, but the value of **chi** is 0.0007. This means, that Person B _is_ likelier to have sex with someone the more previous partners he has had, but the influence of factor **x** compared to Every Other Factor is tiny, so it is essentially useless as a predictor. > [@Barrett\_Bonden](#): > > Person C’s equation also contains **[chi times x]**, where **chi** is several orders of magnitude larger than Person B’s, so in that case, yes, your prediction would be accurate. . . This means that for Person C, yes, how many previous partners he has had would an accurate predictor of whether he will have sex with the next partner, assuming none of the other variables will “overcome” the influence of **x**. The larger point is that your claim to be able to predict a person’s behavior based on **x** is incorrect. You do not know how **x** influences a given person. People are different, and people’s reactions to different people are different. There is no trend for All People (or even All Women) based on **x**. ---
**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, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/164 "2016-07-14T22:17:59Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > No. The concept I’ve accepted is causality, which renders your post tautological. Make the circumstances even the tiniest bit different, and your analogy changes entirely. Under your own principle that likelihood of consensual sex is irrelevant and the only thing that counts is likelihood of false allegations, then it wouldn’t be tautological. > [@Barrett\_Bonden](#): > > I’m sure that I saw you say that you understand statistics earlier in this thread. On what basis do you make this claim? Fellow of the Society of Actuaries, all those actuarial exams etc. etc. What have you got? > [@](#): > > Okay, let me translate this for you, since the points I made with obviously fake and silly statistical variables were too scary. > > **x** is in the denominator. This means that for Person A, the more people she has had sex with, the **less** likely she is to have sex in the future. > > This means, that Person B _is_ likelier to have sex with someone the more previous partners he has had, but the influence of factor **x** compared to Every Other Factor is tiny, so it is essentially useless as a predictor. > > This means that for Person C, yes, how many previous partners he has had would an accurate predictor of whether he will have sex with the next partner, assuming none of the other variables will “overcome” the influence of **x**. > > The larger point is that your claim to be able to predict a person’s behavior based on **x** is incorrect. You do not know how **x** influences a given person. People are different, and people’s reactions to different people are different. There is no trend for All People (or even All Women) based on **x**. This is all silly. Of course you don’t know about any given person, and any person could be different. That’s what likelihood is all about. You really don’t seem to understand this. On a cloudy day, it’s more likely to rain. That doesn’t mean that it will rain on every cloudy day, and there are any number of other factors that influence whether it will or won’t rain on a given cloudy day. But anyone who says that whether it’s cloudy on a given day is irrelevant as to whether it will rain on that day is an idiot. As I said earlier, you don’t exclude all evidence that doesn’t completely and on its own determine guilt or innocence. Things which tend to support guilt or innocence are also admitted. ---
**Author:** ![Barrett\_Bonden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@Barrett\_Bonden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barrett_Bonden)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/165 "2016-07-14T22:40:07Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Under your own principle that likelihood of consensual sex is irrelevant and the only thing that counts is likelihood of false allegations, then it wouldn’t be tautological. > > Fellow of the Society of Actuaries, all those actuarial exams etc. etc. > > What have you got? Right. I’m sure you have actuarial tables discussing the likelihood of a person of a given age and experience having sex with a random person. I’m an engineer. I got my degrees from two fairly reputable engineering schools. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > This is all silly. Of course you don’t know about any given person, and any person could be different. That’s what likelihood is all about. You really don’t seem to understand this. I understand exactly what you’re saying, it’s just that you’re still wrong. You are saying that for any given person, you can reasonably extrapolate whether one sex act was consensual based on their number of previous sexual partners prior to the act in question. You are saying that for everybody in the whole world, the correlation between the number of previous sexual partners and any given instance of consensual sex is _so strong_ that it should be considered pertinent when an individual rape case is legally tried. I am telling you, with and without statistical handwaving, that your claim is rubbish. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > On a cloudy day, it’s more likely to rain. That doesn’t mean that it will rain on every cloudy day, and there are any number of other factors that influence whether it will or won’t rain on a given cloudy day. But anyone who says that whether it’s cloudy on a given day is irrelevant as to whether it will rain on that day is an idiot. Yes, because the relationship between cloudiness and rain is very strong. If you were expressing that mathematically, the cloudiness variable would be in the numerator and its factor would be large compared to the factors for the other variables. Any meteorologist would tell you that although weather patterns complicated, they are childishly simple compared to patterns of human interaction. ---
**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, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/166 "2016-07-14T22:45:09Z")
> [@Barrett\_Bonden](#): > > Right. I’m sure you have actuarial tables discussing the likelihood of a person of a given age and experience having sex with a random person. Don’t weasel. I’m not claiming that I have stats on that, and I didn’t bring in that fact myself, but you asked, and what you asked about was “understand[ing] statistics” > [@](#): > > I understand exactly what you’re saying, it’s just that you’re still wrong. > > You are saying that for any given person, you can reasonably extrapolate whether one sex act was consensual based on their number of previous sexual partners prior to the act in question. You are saying that for everybody in the whole world, the correlation between the number of previous sexual partners and any given instance of consensual sex is _so strong_ that it should be considered pertinent when an individual rape case is legally tried. > > I am telling you, with and without statistical handwaving, that your claim is rubbish. OK. IOW an empty assertion by you. That’s fine. You’re entitled to an opinion. ---
**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, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/167 "2016-07-14T22:48:49Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Under your own principle that likelihood of consensual sex is irrelevant and the only thing that counts is likelihood of false allegations, then it wouldn’t be tautological. That’s not my principle. My principle is that if you already know the likelihood of sex is 100%, treating it as a likelihood of consensual sex is inappropriate, as it necessarily considers the likelihood of sex at all. Cobras are rare where I live; cobras wearing top hats are rarer still. If I prove that I saw a cobra and claimed it was wearing a top hat, you shouldn’t evaluate my claim based on the rarity of cobras around my neck of the woods. The “saw a cobra” part of the claim is already established. The only part you should consider is the top hat part, that is, the part that’s not established. Now, evaluating the claim necessarily is an evaluation of the claim of whether it was consensual sex. But if you’re not careful–which is one of the problems with your proposal–you’ll start considering the possibility that the sex didn’t happen at all, despite the fact that the “sex” part of “consensual sex” is established. In any case, your statement is absolutely tautological, unless you violate causality. Otherwise, you’re suggesting that Molly sometimes chooses to have sex with Joe, and sometimes, under exactly the same conditions, chooses not to. Can you explain how that doesn’t violate causality? ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/168 "2016-07-14T22:50:21Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > To be honest, it’s hard to imagine that people seriously believe what they’re claiming here, although I guess a lot of people have difficulty with probability concepts. But one more shot: let’s take it to the extreme. > > Suppose in Case A, you can somehow prove with absolute certainty that the accuser would never under any circumstances have agreed to consensual sex with anyone like this defendant (or possibly anyone at all). And 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. Do you really believe that these things have no bearing - no bearing at all - on the likelihood that the sex was consensual versus non-consensual? And that the likelihood of non-consensual sex is equally likely in Case A as in Case B? Yes, in those cases it might be relevant. Maybe - but it doesn’t matter because you can never prove either of those things. Every promiscuous woman was a virgin once and even a promiscuous woman doesn’t consent to every man she meets. I might in fact have a habit of going to the bar every Thursday night and picking up a stranger- but it doesn’t mean that I’m lying if I accuse Man A of raping me Thursday night after I meet him at the bar. Perhaps I had my sights set on Man B. Maybe I would have willingly slept with every man in the bar _except_ Man A. ``` You're too focused on numbers and there are a few things you don't seem to understand. First, numbers are really good for a lot of things , but not so much for making judgments about individuals.How many women have the average 1.87 children? When our legal system makes judgments about people , we aim to make them on the basis of an individual or an incident. We may look more closely at certain individuals based on statistical probabilities, but we don't generally assume that the statistics tell us anything about an individual. I might get audited based on my income level and types of employment- but the IRS doesn't decide I've cheated just because people in my income bracket/employment are more likely to cheat on taxes.They look at my finances in more detail. 99% of people my age with my family medical history may have a coronary blockage, but no one is going to send me off to have an angiogram and a stent without performing some tests on me, the individual. And if the defendant was accused (or even convicted) of rape 20 times before , that's not generally admissible to prove he committed this one ( there are exceptions, just like there are exceptions that allow the victim's sexual history in.) ``` Second, no matter how much you to avoid it, the relevant question is who is more credible about consent in a rape where the sex is conceded. How many men the victim has slept with is not relevant to her credibility. I know you keep talking about whether it’s likely that she consented, but there could be a 99% probability that she consented (although I don’t see how you could quantify it) and that still leaves a 1% chance that she did not. The “she’s a whore” defense is used to attack the victim’s credibility when she claims there was no consent. Because there can’t be a conviction if the jury believes she is lying when she says she didn’t consent . And there shouldn’t be a conviction _just_ because she was previously nun-like. In fact, one of the exceptions is when the prosecution puts the victims sexual history into play. Which I suspect doesn’t happen very often - but even then the defense is used to attack to attack the victim’s credibility, > [@](#): > > Things which have a bearing on likelihood are evidence. By definition. I’m surprised that you would try to deny that. That might be a first in this thread. True as far as it goes. But they aren’t all _admissible_ evidence. You’re still absolutely free to use things like rumor and reputation to form your own opinion, though. And people will- which is exactly why that sort of evidence isn’t admissible. ---
**Author:** ![Barrett\_Bonden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/5e9695/32.png) [@Barrett\_Bonden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Barrett_Bonden)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/169 "2016-07-14T22:53:43Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I’m not claiming that, and I didn’t bring it up myself at all, but you asked, and what you asked about was “understand[ing] statistics” I was joking there. I didn’t think you were claiming such tables existed. Your mention of actuarial tables helped me understand your worldview a little better. I mean, based on your tables, you can reasonably predict a lot of stuff, and for useful purposes. Just not _this_ type of stuff. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > OK. IOW an empty assertion by you. That’s fine. You’re entitled to an opinion. As is yours, and as are you. I’m just pointing out that my opinion happens to be correct. 😃 (If you _ **did** _ have those sex-based actuarial tables, then your assertion wouldn’t be as empty. . .just sayin’.) ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/170 "2016-07-14T23:05:10Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Your suggestion that opportunities lead to more reports fundamentally misunderstands how false rape reports occur. They’re not random risks; it’s not like the risk of pregnancy, which rises with incidents of unprotected sex. They’re calculated, deliberate acts. What, besides character, can explain them? I’m not sure that’s necessarily always accurate. I would submit that there’s not always a bright line, and that what happens after the sex is over can make a huge difference. If a woman is infatuated with a man, and he “forcefully ravages” her, followed by a declaration of love, maybe it wouldn’t even cross her mind to think it was rape. But if after pulling out, he instead cruelly declares that he is done with her and she should GTFO so he can go mock her physical imperfections to all his buddies, she might well see it quite differently. Yet by any reasonable and exacting legal standard, it should have either been rape or not rape _while the intercourse was occurring._ Conversely, you have repeatedly said that whether the rape allegation is or isn’t true, there was in any event definitely sexual intercourse. But this was not true for my friend whose life was ruined. His accuser told the police he raped her on Saturday night in the town where we went to college; but he was with me and two other friends in a city hundreds of miles away, from midday Saturday until Sunday afternoon. So there are wider ranges of circumstances involved in these cases than you and F-P are allowing for. ---
**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, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/171 "2016-07-14T23:10:32Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > That’s not my principle. My principle is that if you already know the likelihood of sex is 100%, treating it as a likelihood of consensual sex is inappropriate, as it necessarily considers the likelihood of sex at all. > > Cobras are rare where I live; cobras wearing top hats are rarer still. If I prove that I saw a cobra and claimed it was wearing a top hat, you shouldn’t evaluate my claim based on the rarity of cobras around my neck of the woods. The “saw a cobra” part of the claim is already established. The only part you should consider is the top hat part, that is, the part that’s not established. “Sex was established” is not the same thing as “consensual sex was established”. There’s no reason not to consider whether “consensual sex was established”, especially as that happens to be the fundamental question we’re dealing with. Your assertion that “_if you’re not careful–which is one of the problems with your proposal–you’ll start considering the possibility that the sex didn’t happen at all_” has no meaning in context. I agree that you should not consider the possibility that the sex didn’t happen at all, and if for some reason you think it takes care to avoid that, then by all means do that. But having taken care, you can then completely accept that the sex happened while still acknowledging that the core question is whether consensual sex happened, and there’s no reason not to do that other than that it doesn’t happen work out for your argument here. > [@](#): > > In any case, your statement is absolutely tautological, unless you violate causality. Otherwise, you’re suggesting that Molly sometimes chooses to have sex with Joe, and sometimes, under exactly the same conditions, chooses not to. Can you explain how that doesn’t violate causality? I don’t know who Molly and Joe are but no one has sex every single minute of the day, so that would obviously be the case. > [@doreen](#): > > Yes, in those cases it might be relevant. Maybe - but it doesn’t matter because you can never prove either of those things. Again it was an illustration. > [@](#): > > You’re too focused on numbers and there are a few things you don’t seem to understand. First, numbers are really good for a lot of things , but not so much for making judgments about individuals. How many women have the average 1.87 children? When our legal system makes judgments about people , we aim to make them on the basis of an individual or an incident. We may look more closely at certain individuals based on statistical probabilities, but we don’t generally assume that the statistics tell us anything about an individual. As I said before, numbers are just a way to explain things. In reality no one is going to know the exact probability of anything or be able to tell you exactly how much such-and-such evidence increases the likelihood of guilt or innocence. You couldn’t say “so-and-so’s testimony seemed convincing and raised the odds that the guy is guilty from 62.4% to 87.9%”. This is just a way to illustrate the general concept that it added to the likelihood of the “guilt” scenario being the correct one versus the “innocent” one. And so it is here. > [@](#): > > Second, no matter how much you to avoid it, the relevant question is who is more credible about consent in a rape where the sex is conceded. How many men the victim has slept with is not relevant to her credibility. I know you keep talking about whether it’s likely that she consented, but there could be a 99% probability that she consented (although I don’t see how you could quantify it) and that still leaves a 1% chance that she did not. The opposite is true. I’m not avoiding anything. You’re the one who is avoiding things. I freely concede that credibility of testimony is highly relevant to the question and of course that should be accepted too. But I’m saying that prior history is also relevant, and this is what you’re trying to avoid. > [@](#): > > The “she’s a whore” defense is used to attack the victim’s credibility when she claims there was no consent. Because there can’t be a conviction if the jury believes she is lying when she says she didn’t consent . And there shouldn’t be a conviction _just_ because she was previously nun-like. In fact, one of the exceptions is when the prosecution puts the victims sexual history into play. Which I suspect doesn’t happen very often - but even then the defense is used to attack to attack the victim’s credibility, > > True as far as it goes. But they aren’t all _admissible_ evidence. You’re still absolutely free to use things like rumor and reputation to form your own opinion, though. And people will- which is exactly why that sort of evidence isn’t admissible. I observed very early on in this thread that there are other grounds to exclude such testimony. But not being relevant is not one of those grounds. > [@Barrett\_Bonden](#): > > Your mention of actuarial tables helped me understand your worldview a little better. The interesting thing is that I’ve not mentioned actuarial tables in this thread. You did. Easy come easy go, I guess. ---
**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, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/172 "2016-07-14T23:12:57Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I’m not sure that’s necessarily always accurate. I would submit that there’s not always a bright line, and that what happens after the sex is over can make a huge difference. If a woman is infatuated with a man, and he “forcefully ravages” her, followed by a declaration of love, maybe it wouldn’t even cross her mind to think it was rape. But if after pulling out, he instead cruelly declares that he is done with her and she should GTFO so he can go mock her physical imperfections to all his buddies, she might well see it quite differently. Yet by any reasonable and exacting legal standard, it should have either been rape or not rape _while the intercourse was occurring._ I’ve already made this observation. > [@](#): > > Conversely, you have repeatedly said that whether the rape allegation is or isn’t true, there was in any event definitely sexual intercourse. But this was not true for my friend whose life was ruined. His accuser told the police he raped her on Saturday night in the town where we went to college; but he was with me and two other friends in a city hundreds of miles away, from midday Saturday until Sunday afternoon. You’re wrong here. Cases such as this would not be the cases where prior sexual history have any relevance, so they’re not what we’re discussing. ---
**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, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/173 "2016-07-14T23:14:12Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t know who Molly and Joe are but no one has sex every single minute of the day, so that would obviously be the case. “Obviously the case” that people, under identical circumstances, do different things? We’re failing to communicate here, because that sounds to me like you don’t understand causality. What exactly do you mean by “identical circumstances”? ---
**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, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/174 "2016-07-14T23:15:51Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > What exactly do you mean by “identical circumstances”? Circumstances identical to what the defense is alleging happened in this instance. ---
**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, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/175 "2016-07-14T23:28:52Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Circumstances identical to what the defense is alleging happened in this instance. Under exactly identical circumstances, outcomes are exactly identical. That’s causality. Do you disagree? People don’t have sex every second, **because circumstances are different**. If circumstances are identical, identical things happen. ---
**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, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/176 "2016-07-14T23:33:17Z")
If you get that nitty gritty about it, things are never that level of identical. I didn’t realize you would pick that nit. But circumstances can be identical enough for what happened in one to have a strong bearing on the likelihood of it happening in the other ,without being so completely identical that the exact thing has to happen 100% of the time. ---
**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, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/177 "2016-07-14T23:37:39Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > If you get that nitty gritty about it, things are never that level of identical. I didn’t realize you would pick that nit. Dude, IT’S YOUR HYPOTHETICAL. When I didn’t take it entirely literally, you got all sneery and supercilious about it. > [@](#): > > But circumstances can be identical enough for what happened in one to have a strong bearing on the likelihood of it happening in the other ,without being so completely identical that the exact thing has to happen 100% of the time. 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. Under those circumstances, her many previous experiences become an argument AGAINST a false rape accusation. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2016, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/178 "2016-07-14T23:38:22Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The opposite is true. I’m not avoiding anything. You’re the one who is avoiding things. I freely concede that credibility of testimony is highly relevant to the question and of course that should be accepted too. But I’m saying that prior history is also relevant, and this is what you’re trying to avoid. 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. Your probabilities might work in a vacuum, where all we are doing is figuring out if it’s more likely that Mary the Virgin consented to John or if Good-time Pam consented to Victor. In that vacuum, where no one has said a word that we know of on the matter of consent , who is lying is not an issue. But that’s an entirely different context than a rape trial. ---
**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, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/179 "2016-07-14T23:40:43Z")
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. ---
**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, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695/180 "2016-07-14T23:42:29Z")
> [@doreen](#): > > Your probabilities might work in a vacuum, where all we are doing is figuring out if it’s more likely that Mary the Virgin consented to John or if Good-time Pam consented to Victor. In that vacuum, where no one has said a word that we know of on the matter of consent , who is lying is not an issue. But that’s an entirely different context than a rape trial. Indeed. These possibilities must add up to 100%: a) The “victim” is lying, and there was no rape; or b) The victim is telling the truth, and there was a rape. Talking about the victim’s likelihood to lie is a necessary component of the equation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-double-standards-around-rape-and-sexual-assault/759695.md?page=10)