The double standards around rape and sexual assault

[SlackerInc]

@Kimera757

I doubt there’s good statistics backing this up, but the police believe that the vast majority of victims reporting rape are telling the truth… but are more likely to lie about this crime than any other. A false accusation of rape can destroy someone’s reputation.

Yes, which is exactly what happened to my best friend in college, and essentially led to his death a couple years later, after dropping out of college due to said ruined reputation and going back to the poor inner city neighborhood he thought he had escaped.

@Kimera757

IMO, rape should be punished as severely as murder.

Whoa, can’t go with you on that. First of all, I don’t like the notion that someone who has been raped has been so “tainted” that their continued life is forevermore going to be something worse than (or at least no better than) death. But also, just pragmatically: if the law did punish rape as severely as murder, it would create a great incentive for rapists to murder their victims, who are after all usually the only witnesses to the crime. I suppose if you believe living life as a rape victim is no way to live at all, this would not be a pragmatic objection, but I just can’t understand this thought. There are people I care about who have been raped, and I am glad they are still alive–and they seem to live generally happy, productive lives.

@Fotheringay-Phipps

No. But if you’d like I can link you to some cutesy remarks that avoid addressing the issue at hand.

Heh, nice one.

@MandaJo

I do not believe that a pattern of promiscuity makes a woman more likely to falsely accuse a man of rape, which is really what is relevant here. If anything, I would think a woman who had had sex with hundreds of men and never cried rape is more believable, not less.

This is a good point.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

That’s just a logical error.

No it’s not.

[The more apt analogy would be if you gave out a lot of biscuits and Martin had a ready supply of biscuits but never shared any. Frank and Bill both admit to having eaten your/Martin’s biscuits, but claim you/Martin gave it to them. Your/Martin’s history or sharing or not sharing biscuits would be relevant in exactly the same manner as I’ve been saying here.]

Right–which is to say, not relevant at all. If I’ve never before accused someone of stealing my biscuits, nor has Martin, the fact that I’ve shared mine previously and Martin has not is completely irrelevant to a case in which I accuse someone of stealing. Unless if makes me MORE believable, since I have a history of above-the-board biscuit transactions, so you have an established pattern of how I act after I’ve given someone a biscuit. Martin, lacking such an established pattern, is more of an unknown.

To the extent that reputation should have any bearing, the more consensual-sex-without-rape-accusations a person has had, the more believable an accusation of rape from them should be.

But that’s a very small extent.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Right–which is to say, not relevant at all. If I’ve never before accused someone of stealing my biscuits, nor has Martin, the fact that I’ve shared mine previously and Martin has not is completely irrelevant to a case in which I accuse someone of stealing.

Only if you choose to ignore the fact that the likelihood of the only alternative - that you/Martin shared the biscuits - has a bearing on the likelihood of the stealing allegation.

Ignoring that is a logical error.

[QuickSilver]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Why are you putting quotes around “useful”? Whose use of the term are you referring to?

My own. I’m calling into question the utility of relevance (of past sexual history) which you are calling “not irrelevant”.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

In that case I don’t see that you’re asking anything that has not been repeatedly answered already, so I have nothing to add.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Only if you choose to ignore the fact that the likelihood of the only alternative - that you/Martin shared the biscuits - has a bearing on the likelihood of the stealing allegation.

Ignoring that is a logical error.

You’re ignoring the woman’s own claim. Do you apply that logic under other circumstances?

I heard about a new technology in (I think) Singapore, that detects urine in elevators and sets off an alarm.

The Dorkness Building has had two such elevators installed. One is in the main lobby, and thousands of people travel through it every day without setting off the alarm. The other, due to poor planning, is in a back hallway, and nobody ever uses it.

One day, Bill and Ted tell you, “I used the Dorkness elevator without peeing in it!” You’re like, okay, dudes, cool. Bill was in the lobby elevator, and Ted was in the back hallway elevator. Do you have any reason to believe one above the other? Maybe you believe BIll more, since at least you know that elevator is used.

Then you find out that the alarms went off: the elevator that sees thousands of uses every day without setting off the alarm set it off after Bill’s trip in it, and the hallway elevator that’s never been used set off the alarm after Ted’s trip in it.

Do you still believe Bill more when he denies peeing in the elevator? Does the alarm not change your opinion?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

And as a note, in no way do I think a woman’s body is like an elevator, there to be used for going up and down on. That’s not the relevant part of the analogy :).

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

You’re ignoring the woman’s own claim. Do you apply that logic under other circumstances?

No, I’m not ignoring the woman’s own claim. You’re refusing to focus on anything but the woman’s own claim. I’m saying other factors are also relevant.

I heard about a new technology in (I think) Singapore, that detects urine in elevators and sets off an alarm.

The Dorkness Building has had two such elevators installed. One is in the main lobby, and thousands of people travel through it every day without setting off the alarm. The other, due to poor planning, is in a back hallway, and nobody ever uses it.

One day, Bill and Ted tell you, “I used the Dorkness elevator without peeing in it!” You’re like, okay, dudes, cool. Bill was in the lobby elevator, and Ted was in the back hallway elevator. Do you have any reason to believe one above the other? Maybe you believe BIll more, since at least you know that elevator is used.

Then you find out that the alarms went off: the elevator that sees thousands of uses every day without setting off the alarm set it off after Bill’s trip in it, and the hallway elevator that’s never been used set off the alarm after Ted’s trip in it.

Do you still believe Bill more when he denies peeing in the elevator? Does the alarm not change your opinion?

If I’ve understood you here, this is nothing more than a rather complex and long-fangled way of repeating your earlier claim that a woman who had a lot of sex and didn’t accuse anyone of rape is more credible than someone who doesn’t have this history. (I think that’s what you’re saying - “people using the elevator” = “people having sex with this woman”, and “alarm going off” = “accusation of rape”.)

In any event, it doesn’t change that the plausibility of one scenario has a bearing on the likelihood of the alternative scenario having occurred. You can resolutely ignore this and focus on other aspects of the issue at great length and with complicated analogies, but it doesn’t change that.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

No, I’m not ignoring the woman’s own claim. You’re refusing to focus on anything but the woman’s own claim. I’m saying other factors are also relevant.
…
In any event, it doesn’t change that the plausibility of one scenario has a bearing on the likelihood of the alternative scenario having occurred. You can resolutely ignore this and focus on other aspects of the issue at great length and with complicated analogies, but it doesn’t change that.

I’m focusing on the entire event. A consensual sexual encounter without an accusation of rape is fundamentally different from a consensual sexual encounter followed by an incorrect accusation of rape. The likelihood of the former in no way predicts the likelihood of the latter.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Of course it has a bearing. Because if the likelihood of any sort of consensual sexual encounter is 0% or close to that, then the likelihood of a consensual sexual encounter followed by a false accusation of rape - a subset of the first category - is also 0%. QED.

What’s relevant here is that to the extent that we - or the jury - find the likelihood of any sort of consensual sexual encounter to be completely implausible, then we - or the jury - will logically find the likelihood of a consensual sexual encounter followed by a false accusation of rape to also be completely implausible on that basis. If in reality the likelihood of any sort of consensual sexual encounter can actually be shown to be plausible, then this reasoning will fail. But if the defense is barred from introducing evidence of plausibility, then a jury could incorrectly make the logical inference.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Of course it has a bearing. Because if the likelihood of any sort of consensual sexual encounter is 0% or close to that, then the likelihood of a consensual sexual encounter followed by a false accusation of rape - a subset of the first category - is also 0%. QED.

Oh. That logic works great if people don’t have a first consensual sexual encounter.

Past lack of sexual encounters does not predict future sexual encounters, any more than past lack of accurate rape accusations predicts future accurate rape accusations. Everything that ever happens at some point happens for the first time.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I don’t know what that means.

But at this point I think my point is clear anyway, so no harm.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Oh. That logic works great if people don’t have a first consensual sexual encounter.

Past lack of sexual encounters does not predict future sexual encounters, any more than past lack of accurate rape accusations predicts future accurate rape accusations. Everything that ever happens at some point happens for the first time.

As above, assuming that something happened for the first time - whether consensual sexual encounters, false rape accusations, or actual rapes - has a bearing on the likelihood of it having happened again. Therefore:

[ul]
[li]Evidence that someone has a history of consensual sexual encounters has a bearing on the likelihood that in a given instance they might have had a consensual sexual encounter.[/li][li]Evidence that someone has a history of false rape accusations has a bearing on the likelihood that in a given instance they might be making a false rape accusation.[/li][li]Evidence that someone has a history of committing rapes has a bearing on the likelihood than in a given instance he might have committed a rape.[/li][/ul]

I’m only responding to this because you edited your prior post after I already responded to it. But as above I think my position is pretty clear and don’t anticipate rehashing it again and again in response to the same contortions.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

As above, assuming that something happened for the first time - whether consensual sexual encounters, false rape accusations, or actual rapes - has a bearing on the likelihood of it having happened again. Therefore:

[ul]
[li]Evidence that someone has a history of consensual sexual encounters has a bearing on the likelihood that in a given instance they might have had a consensual sexual encounter.[/li][li]Evidence that someone has a history of false rape accusations has a bearing on the likelihood that in a given instance they might be making a false rape accusation.[/li][li]Evidence that someone has a history of committing rapes has a bearing on the likelihood than in a given instance he might have committed a rape.[/li][/ul]

Do you similarly agree that evidence that someone has a history of having sex without making false rape accusations has a bearing on the likelihood that in a given instance they might not be making a false rape accusation?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Also, while your theory isn’t exactly super-clear, your mention of subsets and whatnot seems to suggest you think you’re talking about mathematical realities. Imagine a study showing that recent virgins who report that an incident was rape are likelier to have made a false report than casual sex fans who report than an incident was rape. Is that mathematically impossible? If not, why not?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Do you similarly agree that evidence that someone has a history of having sex without making false rape accusations has a bearing on the likelihood that in a given instance they might not be making a false rape accusation?

Yes. Exactly in the same manner.

But too a much much smaller degree. Because rape accusations (false or true) are so rare to begin with that a history of them not happening is not that big of a deal, probability-wise.

That would be more analogous to saying so-and-so has a history of not raping people so it’s less likely that he raped someone on this occasion. On average, the likelihood that any given person has committed a rape is greater than 0%, but not by all that much, so establishing that it’s 0% and not some tiny bit above 0% doesn’t change the odds all that much, even if it does change it to a very small degree.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Also, while your theory isn’t exactly super-clear, your mention of subsets and whatnot seems to suggest you think you’re talking about mathematical realities.

IMO it’s extremely clear.

“Mathematical realities” are just about putting numbers on probabilities. But the probabilities themselves are more about logic.

Imagine a study showing that recent virgins who report that an incident was rape are likelier to have made a false report than casual sex fans who report than an incident was rape. Is that mathematically impossible? If not, why not?

It’s not mathematically impossible.

There’s no reason for it to be mathematically impossible and it’s not clear why you think it should be. It’s very likely that recent virgins (henceforth RV) are less likely to have sexual encounters than “casual sex fans” (henceforth CSF), but it’s theoretically possible that they make more false reports as a percentage of all reports. But you would need a pretty big skew in he percentage of consensual encounters being falsely reported as rapes to overcome the difference in the number of encounters. For example:

Suppose a random sample of 100 CSF has 1,000 consensual encounters in a given year and 10 non-consensual encounters. They report all 10 non-consensual encounters as rapes, but they also report 1% of consensual encounters as rapes. That adds up to 20 rape reports, 10 of which are false.

Now your random sample of 100 RV has 10 consensual encounters in a given year and 10 non-consensual encounters. They too report all 10 non-consensual encounters as rapes. In order for them to match the number and percentage of false reports, they would have to report 100% of all consensual encounters as being rapes. If they only reported 50% of consensual encounters as rapes, they would still be accurate 2/3 of the time versus the CSF 50%, even though the RV group is 50 times more likely to falsely report a consensual encounter as being rape.

Of course, all the numbers above have no relation to reality and just intended to illustrate the general concepts.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Yes. Exactly in the same manner.

But too a much much smaller degree. Because rape accusations (false or true) are so rare to begin with that a history of them not happening is not that big of a deal, probability-wise.

That would be more analogous to saying so-and-so has a history of not raping people so it’s less likely that he raped someone on this occasion. On average, the likelihood that any given person has committed a rape is greater than 0%, but not by all that much, so establishing that it’s 0% and not some tiny bit above 0% doesn’t change the odds all that much, even if it does change it to a very small degree.IMO it’s extremely clear.

“Mathematical realities” are just about putting numbers on probabilities. But the probabilities themselves are more about logic.

It’s not mathematically impossible.

There’s no reason for it to be mathematically impossible and it’s not clear why you think it should be. It’s very likely that recent virgins (henceforth RV) are less likely to have sexual encounters than “casual sex fans” (henceforth CSF), but it’s theoretically possible that they make more false reports as a percentage of all reports. But you would need a pretty big skew in he percentage of consensual encounters being falsely reported as rapes to overcome the difference in the number of encounters. For example:

Suppose a random sample of 100 CSF has 1,000 consensual encounters in a given year and 10 non-consensual encounters. They report all 10 non-consensual encounters as rapes, but they also report 1% of consensual encounters as rapes. That adds up to 20 rape reports, 10 of which are false.

Now your random sample of 100 RV has 10 consensual encounters in a given year and 10 non-consensual encounters. They too report all 10 non-consensual encounters as rapes. In order for them to match the number and percentage of false reports, they would have to report 100% of all consensual encounters as being rapes. If they only reported 50% of consensual encounters as rapes, they would still be accurate 2/3 of the time versus the CSF 50%, even though the RV group is 50 times more likely to falsely report a consensual encounter as being rape.

Of course, all the numbers above have no relation to reality and just intended to illustrate the general concepts.

The problem with those numbers is this: those CSFs in your example are having an average of 10 sexual encounters a year. If 1% of those encounters are reported as rapes, and they’re evenly distributed among the CSFs, that means that 10% of the CSFs are willing to make a false accusation.

And that’s where character comes in, and what you’re losing sight of. For your claim to be accurate, people who have lots of sex must be astonishingly vicious in their willingness to accuse their partners of rape. The correct lens is the individual, not the incident.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

The problem with those numbers is this: those CSFs in your example are having an average of 10 sexual encounters a year. If 1% of those encounters are reported as rapes, and they’re evenly distributed among the CSFs, that means that 10% of the CSFs are willing to make a false accusation.

And that’s where character comes in, and what you’re losing sight of. For your claim to be accurate, people who have lots of sex must be astonishingly vicious in their willingness to accuse their partners of rape.

I don’t know how you missed it, but I ended the prior post with: “Of course, all the numbers above have no relation to reality and just intended to illustrate the general concepts.” (more below)

The correct lens is the individual, not the incident.

I don’t know that I agree and it may depend on how you look at it. You can’t report a consensual sexual encounter as a rape unless you’ve had such an encounter to begin with.

But this is not my deal. I was responding to your question about a hypothetical situation “Imagine a study showing …” and the question about whether and why something would be mathematically possible in such a situation. For you to turn around and then try to attribute to me what was put forth as a mathematical possibility in your own hypothetical doesn’t seem justifiable, to put it mildly.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

I don’t know how you missed it, but I ended the prior post with: “Of course, all the numbers above have no relation to reality and just intended to illustrate the general concepts.” (more below)I don’t know that I agree and it may depend on how you look at it. You can’t report a consensual sexual encounter as a rape unless you’ve had such an encounter to begin with.

But this is not my deal. I was responding to your question about a hypothetical situation “Imagine a study showing …” and the question about whether and why something would be mathematically possible in such a situation. For you to turn around and then try to attribute to me what was put forth as a mathematical possibility in your own hypothetical doesn’t seem justifiable, to put it mildly.

I saw your note. The problem is that what your example illustrates is that you’re trying to explain a conclusion about character by referencing incidents, not characters. No matter what numbers you offer, if you look at it per incident, not per character, you’re wrong.

Note, as an aside, that you’re starting to turn this into questions about my honesty. Is this really the path you want to take? I promise you I’m arguing in good faith and not attempting to misrepresent you.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Look at it by character, using your hypothetical numbers but adding something new. 1% of people will, one time, report an incident falsely as rape. (serial reporters confound the numbers, but are I think vanishingly rare; show me evidence they’re not, and we’ll look at that.)

Over 10 years, the CSFs will report 1 rape falsely, and will have 100 actual rapes.
Over 10 years, the RVs will report 1 rape falsely, and will have 100 actual rapes.

Do you agree?

The fact that the CSFs have more sex doesn’t mean that they will report more rapes falsely. It’s not like every person who has sex has a risk every time they have sex of accidentally reporting a false rape. That’s not how it works.