When False Rape Allegations Ruin a Reputation
A police officer loses his job due to false rape allegations (thanks to the reader who emailed this story):
His lawyer (Greer) makes a good point but how do you restore a man's reputation who has been charged (although what turns out to be falsely) for rape--even though he was cleared, hasn't damage been done? Why shouldn't the liar who gave the false report have to pay in some way? Why is it okay to ruin a man's reputation with false rape allegations without repercussions? Why is this acceptable?
This case reminded me of something that columnist Kathleen Parker wrote in her new book, Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care:
The rest of society is finding it acceptable too. It is not. If a woman was raped and lost her job because of what happened, people would be outraged. If a man loses his job by having a false rape charge against him, there is often nary a whimper.
A special prosecutor has dropped the rape case against a Parachute police officer who lost his job as a result of the allegations.
Tammy Eret, the chief Mesa County deputy district attorney who was brought in to handle the case, said she questions the credibility of the alleged victim. In a motion to dismiss the case, she outlined 22 concerns about the alleged victim’s credibility, and suggested the woman might have had consensual sex with the man, then regretted it.
Prosecutors decided to dismiss all charges against him. Magistrate Lain Leoniak said Wednesday that she signed an order and the case will be dismissed. The 21st Judicial District Attorney’s Office had been specially appointed to review the rape case against Duncan, 25.....
The defendant, Kristopher Duncan, a former Marine and Iraq war veteran, said he hopes to return to law enforcement, but he hadn’t decided where. His lawyer, Greg Greer, of Glenwood Springs, said it remains “unanswered” whether or not his client can sue Parachute for being fired in the wake of the incident.
“I think the biggest thing was the embarrassment that I would even be accused of something like that,” Duncan said, “but I knew I didn’t do anything wrong....”
Greer praised Eret’s decision to drop the case. “Our challenge now is just to restore his good reputation,” Greer said.
His lawyer (Greer) makes a good point but how do you restore a man's reputation who has been charged (although what turns out to be falsely) for rape--even though he was cleared, hasn't damage been done? Why shouldn't the liar who gave the false report have to pay in some way? Why is it okay to ruin a man's reputation with false rape allegations without repercussions? Why is this acceptable?
This case reminded me of something that columnist Kathleen Parker wrote in her new book, Save the Males: Why Men Matter Why Women Should Care:
The assumption of guilt when it comes to males and rape is so entrenched in the American psyche that we ignore our better sense and embrace the righteousness of the mob. The same feminist spirit that successfully fought to eradicate the "she deserved it" attitude toward rape victims inexplicably found acceptable an equally unjust "of course he did it" attitude toward men.
The rest of society is finding it acceptable too. It is not. If a woman was raped and lost her job because of what happened, people would be outraged. If a man loses his job by having a false rape charge against him, there is often nary a whimper.
Labels: men's rights (or lack thereof)
posted by Helen at 10:16 AM
95 Comments:
because he's a white male and obviously guilty of something and deserving of everything he gets.
fake but accurate!
When the cost to men of sleeping with acquaintances gets too high, less of it will happen. Parents, schools, and society in general could help by raising gentlemen, rather than assuming that all men are dogs. Wouldn't it be an interesting world if men were trained to take the moral high ground, and women were left alone at home to watch the latest episode of Sex in the City?
Jake,
No, it would not be interesting. I don't see how not having sex is taking the "moral high ground." It sounds lonely and frankly depressing. I do not advocate sleeping around, but men and women have the right to do so if they so desire.
Men have the right to sleep with acquaintances if they so desire, just as women do. Men have a right to sexual freedom, just as women do. Men's reproductive rights are becoming less and less free. That is no answer to this problem. Not allowing false claims without repercussions is the solution, not restricting men's sexuality.
Jake's post is, to put it nicely, absurd.
That's pretty much like saying "she wouldn't have been raped if she wouldn't have dressed like that, or kissed him, etc." Isn't that what feminists say, there is no excuse for rape? (and this is one of the few times feminists are right, a woman's dress or kissing does not excuse rape).
It's equally as silly to say it is a man's fault for being falsely accused of rape because he had consensual sex.
Rapists are responsible for their rape, and liars are responsible for their lies.
You know what the saddest thing is? That absolutely obvious things like what I just wrote and what Helen wrote are actually debated so frequently. We are living in a generation that lacks sense.
Jake, while we probably agree that sex only belongs in marriage, the consequences of the man's liaison were completely unjust. And debating a religious view of sin (and its consequences) in a secular setting usually leads to useless arguments, as it often even does in religious settings.
I wish we had more details on why this guy got fired. I could understand suspending him -- if they had kept him on his beat, and then it turned out that the allegations were true, they could've faced massive lawsuits. But firing him outright? Whatever happened to guilty until proven innocent?
The woman should face the consequences of her actions -- if not jail, then community service. Usually community service is a ridiculously light sentence for a serious crime, but I would love to see a false accuser have to give humiliating speeches about how what she did was wrong.
Slightly OT, but when will American feminists and media start harping on "honor killings" of rape victims in Muslim cultures? If Christians were practicing this, they would rightly condemn it. Maybe it's because it would make them seem too close to Bush.
@John F Not Kerry:
They don't care about honor killings because it can't help their agenda here at home. That's why they opposed deposing the Taliban in Afghanistan, even thought it liberated women from being treated like animals. "Women's rights" has, sadly, become just one more noble sounding cover for the left's real agenda.
It's funny you mention Bush. For all his faults, Bush treats women beautifully, whereas his predecessor harrassed more women than perhaps any other president, yet, who is routinely called a sexist? (Related, but somewhat OT, is that President Bush is the first, and to date only, president to have more than one black in his cabinet. His predecessor turned a blind eye to black genocide. However, which is called a racist, and which is called "Our First African American President.")
Food for thought.
Trust
[...] Ask Dr. Helen - Am I macho car drining ass****? [...]
Couldn't find a link to the MND article here.
in the UK, the accuser even if its found to be a false allegation, has anonymity.
the falsely accused.. has none.
I think the person who makes a false allegation, should be in prison for the same amount as if the man was found guilty.
cinderkeys i think you got your quote the wrong way round
"But firing him outright? Whatever happened to guilty until proven innocent?" he was treated as guilty until proven innocent., i think you meant innocent until proven guilty
Helen said...
Jake,
No, it would not be interesting. I don't see how not having sex is taking the "moral high ground." It sounds lonely and frankly depressing. I do not advocate sleeping around, but men and women have the right to do so if they so desire.
Men have the right to sleep with acquaintances if they so desire, just as women do. Men have a right to sexual freedom, just as women do. Men's reproductive rights are becoming less and less free. That is no answer to this problem. Not allowing false claims without repercussions is the solution, not restricting men's sexuality.
Those are somewhat strange comments given the subject of the article and in the context of your normal commentary, Helen.
The average man has about the same "right" to sleep with acquaintances that he has to smoke Cannabis - the vast majority of those who do will never get caught, but all it takes is one whistleblower and his life turns into a world of hurt. Without a lot of money for defense lawyers (like the Duke 3) and a lot of good luck, a man's life is completely destroyed by a false accusation. I'm sure that Kristopher Duncan would have been no less "lonely and depressed" than he is today if he had weighed the consequences of his potential liason and decided that the downside risk was greater than the potential reward.
With movements under way to eliminate the statute of limitations on rape cases, every act of casual sex becomes a potential rape accusation for the rest of the man's life - "remember that time we had sex back in 1982 or '83? Well, now that I have thought about it I think I withdrew consent halfway through - you rayyyped me."
Sexual restraint is neither lonely nor depressing. Oddly enough, it was considered the norm less than 50 years ago. Now, with the "Heterophobia" which Daphne Patai writes about, the "all sex is rape" thinking of MacKinnon and Dworkin taking over the legal system, and the unbelievable explosion of STDs which has come out of the sexual revolution, caution and restraint make more sense than they ever have before.
It isn't an issue of morality or the "moral high ground", but is a practical adaptation to the environment in which we live. The public perception is that women don't like sex, and that men must pander to and offer them something in order to get them to engage in it. As men age, a tipping point comes when it begins to cost more than it is worth. As the environment becomes progressively more anti-male that tipping point will come at earlier and earlier ages.
The cultural blinders that people wear on the subject of sex are fascinating. Back when I was in high school they use to show us driving safety films of horrible accidents to try to scare us off driving recklessly. The message was "this is what can happen to you if you do." To whatever extent that approach did work, watching the news and just listening to the people around us is going to have some of the same effect - "wow, doing that caused such tragedy in those people's lives that I don't think I'm going to do it."
errata - instead of saying that Duncan would be no less "lonely and depressed" if he had chosen to practice sexual restraint, I meant no more lonely and depressed - and he would still have an intact reputation and career to ease his emotional pain. I'm sure that he is plenty lonely and depressed now, not to mention poor and a social pariah.
The flip side Dr. Helen is the glamorization of rape/sexual assault by a "hot" guy in the media.
Luke and Laura, Spike and Buffy (his character rapes Buffy, she later falls in love with him and has off-screen implied sex with him), and the Denis Leary Character in "Rescue Me."
It's pathetic. If the guy is "hot" or whatever, it's "OK" or even "empowering" as the woman is a "beautiful victim." You see this in "Hounddog" aka the Dakota Fanning rape movie, and "Towelhead" where another young girl is a "beautiful victim."
Frankly, the media is depraved and decadent. I don't see much humanity or decency. Sexual assault should neither be trivialized nor romanticized nor swept under the rug nor false accusations tolerated.
Where it is reasonably suspected it must be prosecuted fully (to insure women's fundamental personal freedom and liberty). Where it is an obvious false accusation, such allegations should be dismissed with criminal penalty for the accuser.
Let me add: men with sisters, mothers, wives, etc. have a huge stake in prosecution and punishment of the real perpetrators, no phony accusations, and no toleration of "hot" guys doing such criminal acts because they are "hot" just as Bill Clinton's sexual harrassment set back the cause for women and the men who are in their families for generations.
Helen,
To a much lesser extent this hits home for me because in high school, I was accused of rape by a girl I didn't even have sex with. We just went out on a few dates, but were never in a situation where it could have happened. Yet, out of anger, she just up and accused me (though later she called me, apologized and apparently bitterly resented what she did because unlike other guys, I had actually treated her well). Fortunately, her accusations never made it up to the girls that I had class with (as far as I know) because she didn't know any of them. However, one of her girlfriends later ended up telling a girl I dated in college about all of this, trying to poison her view of me, and it was just blind luck that the girl I was dating had mostly dated bad boys, and laughed in the girl's face when she tried to feed her those lies.
You're damn right that society is very quick to believe these accusations. I've heard atheists argue "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" for the existence of God, but we seem to treat rape accusations like they're as in need of proof beyond "I done did see him do it ya honah" as a traffic ticket.
I recall, about twenty years ago, that a group of young collegians were falsely accused of gang-raping a co-ed, and radical feminists on the campus, including several members of the faculty, called for their immediate expulsion on the strength of the accusations. When the charges were proved false, one of the feminist professors said that no harm had been done. After all, the young men could have done it, they might have done it, and anyway, the accusations were a good way to raise their consciousness of what they were capable of.
That’s what our public discourse has embraced in the name of feminism. It’s an element of every allegation of rape…every allegation of wife abuse…every allegation of the molestation of a daughter by her father. And it’s part of the case cited here.
There is no solution but this: The American people must reject the premises behind such thinking, and roundly and soundly condemn those who attempt to foist them on us. But that will require a degree of courage – a willingness to be insulted and slandered – that few persons of our time can muster.
Well, this is an interesting discussion, and there are several valid points made above. But the bottom line is this.
Men are held responsible. Period. Women are not. Period.
In that environment, any man who values his name and reputation, not to mention his money, has no alternative. If you do not know her, if she is not honest, if you cannot trust her, do not ever go into a closed room with her.
Sad, but true.
I choose the safe route. I have not touched a woman (literally) or been touched by a woman (literally) in over eleven years. It took a while to get used to, but all I had to do was think about what my ex was capable of. Compare that to the possibility of someone who I don't really know, and an ice cold shower couldn't do a better job.
I think after 15 years, one reverts back to virgin status. I believe it. It's been so long, I wouldn't know what to do anyway.
I do enjoy the company and conversations, but a line was drawn years ago, and a wall built on top of it.
So the best solution is.. NOT TO GO WITH A WOMAN AT ALL. Solves that problem.. but it doesnt.. accusations can happen even when there was no contact.
or women have rights and no responsibilities, men have responsibilities and no rights.
Well, mercurior, that is what I have done, yes. I stay away. I even work in an environment where there are no women in the work place as employees. Women sales people come in, or women come in for various reasons. I introduce my self, ask if I can be of assistance - from a distance - direct them to someone else, and will not shake their hands. I will not be in the conference room alone with a woman for a meeting. Even with the door open. And it's not just cooties, like bugs says.
The lone exception is my GP. But she is a professional.
Nuts? Perhaps. But safely so.
Helen
Are you trying to make us guys paranoid about dealing with women? How many times do men have to hear stories like this before they're allowed to conclude that there is an unacceptably high probability that any woman they meet is likely to be petty, vindictive and treacherous, in other words, probably too dangerous to become involved with at any personal level?
False reporting of rape has become so embroiled in the feminist sexual assault milieu that discussing it as a potentially significant problem for men is verboten because such view does not conform to the feminist rape metanarrative.
In fact, this crime may be unique among all crimes because virtually the entire public discourse about it is dominated by persons who insist it is not a serious public threat. At least not to men. If it is a threat at all, it’s to women, they insist. That is because sexual assault counselors and feminist legal scholars routinely refer to false rape claims as one of the so-called rape “myths.” Some even assert that when a woman recants her rape claim, it is “often” the case that she really was raped but simply wants to avoid the prosecutorial ordeal. It is, of course, impossible to engage in constructive dialogue with persons who purport to refute facts with assertions that cannot be tested.
What is woefully lacking from the public discourse about rape and false accusations is balance. Somewhere in the midst of the smoke generated by the invective, the truth – far too nuanced to appeal to fanatics – has been discarded. Two propositions are eminently reasonable and are not inconsistent: First, it is imperative to appreciate the concern that false accusations not dominate the discourse at the expense of dismissing prejudices true rape victims still face in certain respects. Second, removing false accusations from the discourse and dismissing the victimization of falsely accused men as a "myth" is not merely dishonest but morally grotesque. That position denigrates innocent men, substitutes factually incorrect feminist mantras for truth, and is, in fact, as hurtful as the ludicrous assertion that “she asked for it.”
P.S. These stories are in the news on a daily basis: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/
Many men won't be alone with a woman unrelated to them. My husband won't take a teen girl babysitter home, doesn't want girls over for a playdate with our daughter if I am not home too. It just seems to be common sense now.
Courtship - young men and women getting together with chaperones, not allowed to be alone until engaged (or maybe even married) - has been making a comeback in some circles.
Zed says,
"Sexual restraint is neither lonely nor depressing. Oddly enough, it was considered the norm less than 50 years ago."
"considered the norm" can mean that it was said to be the norm even though it wasn't actually the norm.
Based on my memory, it wasn't actually the norm.
The same feminist spirit that successfully fought to eradicate the "she deserved it" attitude toward rape victims inexplicably found acceptable an equally unjust "of course he did it" attitude toward men.
Oh come on now, how in hell can Kathleen Parker or anyone find this phenomenon "inexplicable"?
The Left is not, and has never been about liberalism or any of its old causes.
There is a good reason for that: It is collectivism that puts the evil in racism, sexism etc.
It is also collectivism that is *the* defining attribute of the Left.
Logically, then, we should expect that with the cop-opting of liberalism by the Left, should come the eventual inversion of all the old liberal causes into exactly what they purport to be fighting.
Sure enough, when we check the history, that is what we find. From the women's suffrage movement down to to Carol Gilligan -- from Dr. Martin Luther King down to Jeremiah Wright -- from "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex" to "all men are rapists" -- from "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" to "all whites are racists" -- the evidence cannot get any clearer what the Left's logical end-of-road is.
Dr. Helen,
You asked:
Why shouldn't the liar who gave the false report have to pay in some way? Why is it okay to ruin a man's reputation with false rape allegations without repercussions? Why is this acceptable?
If you live in a jurisdiction where the police and prosecutors are doing their jobs, the false accusers pay a stiff penalty. I had a case similar to this. Man and woman had consensual sex, woman regretted it and accused man of rape, the police did their job and investigated thoroughly and were able to find that the woman was lying; we filed criminal charges against her and slapped her with a high bond and refused to bargain on the case. I'm no longer prosecuting, but I left the case in capable hands, and my colleague assures me he's going to stick to his guns.
Filing a false police report is a serious offense. I know there are some prosecutors out there who don't take it seriously (very few police officers don't take it seriously, because it's their time and resources that are being wasted in the investigation), but no competent one does. The media -- not surprisingly -- rarely pick up on the follow-up, but that doesn't mean it's not being done.
Elizabeth,
Kudos that your jurisdiction takes such false reports seriously. But quite honestly such charges and ensuing filings are an effort by the State to discourage such actions. But it does not do anything to provide recompense to the accused of such charges.
If in the determination of the false accusation is found in fact then civil charges seem the appropriate response. In the case of the officer he should file a civil case for about 10x of his annual salary. When it becomes plainly obvious that false charges have real consequences then this kind of stupidity will stop.
One other observation. Men need to get a hell of alot smarter about the fact that there are women who are nothing but piranhas. Especially those of a high net worth. You guys are nothing but sitting ducks. What I am suggesting may not be the moral high ground but in a sense the moral high ground could be your best line of defense.
Consider it.
Man, you people are years behind the times. As a commander in the Army almost twenty years ago, it was considered essential for a male commander to discipline a female soldier in the presence of another soldier of superior rank to the disciplined soldier (usually the First Sergeant). Even general counseling was done with doors open as a minimum. There were far too many horror stories, most all accurate, of female soldiers who claimed that they had been disciplined for turning down sexual advances from the commander. In nearly every case, the commander was relieved pending disposition, and in nearly every case, when it was a "he said/she said" situation, the commander lost.
Of course there are plenty of examples where female soldiers were sexually harassed, or turned down unwanted advances of superiors. But these were considered the justification for further draconian measures against males. Funny how cases involving say, theft or bribery never were considered justification for similar draconian measures.
In any event, the civilian world can take another lesson from those of us in the military.
You're welcome.
Elizabeth, typically the maximum sentence for false reporting of rape is six months to two years, depending on the state. This is the same sentence as for the crime of false reporting of theft of purse. This, of course, suggests that there is no proportionality for this sentence -- the punishment doesn't fit the crime. We know this because if the lie had its intended effect and an innocent man was convicted, he could serve decades in prison for rape. That no one seems to care about the absence of proportionality is just another example that false reporting of rape is not part of the public discourse about rape -- it is politically incorrect to acknowlege that false reports are not a "myth." I chronicle these cases in my Web site. False Rape Society
The spirit of Nifong and Crystal Gail Mangum lives on. Sad.
Without a lot of money for defense lawyers (like the Duke 3) and a lot of good luck,...
Well there's the little difference that in the Duke lacrosse case, not only was there no rape, there wasn't even any sex. As proven by DNA tests. Twice. With that evidence, even a medium-priced lawyer could successfully defend a client.
Thanks, John. :)
But it does not do anything to provide recompense to the accused of such charges.
I agree. A judge can order criminal restitution, but the most you can do to a convicted criminal who doesn't pay restitution is violate their probation and throw them in prison. (If they're put on probation in the first place, which most are.) That's why I'd encourage anyone in that kind of situation to sue the pants off their false accuser -- after the criminal case is over, if they possibly can, because having a criminal case and a civil case occurring at the same time is a nightmare.
Elizabeth, typically the maximum sentence for false reporting of rape is six months to two years, depending on the state.
You're right, archivist, and my jurisdiction is no different -- in my state, the maximum for resisting/obstructing an officer, which filing a false report falls under, is a year. I think falsely accusing a person of any crime (not just rape) should be a felony, especially if you're accusing them of committing a felony.
But clever prosecutors can get around the maximum. It's all in how you charge. People are too impressed with the word "felony," because misdemeanors really are the gold of the criminal justice world. I had one case where the defendant (a horrible, horrible man with a history of domestic violence -- the real, skull-cracking kind) kept on calling the victim from jail to harass her, or having third parties call her. He knew how to play the system, so he didn't make direct threats or say anything that could get him charged with felony intimidation of a witness. So I charged him with 42 counts of violating a no contact order -- one for every phone call he made. If convicted on every count, he'd have the potential to get more jail time than he would for the felony.
Similarly, in false report cases, we won't file just one charge. We'll file a charge for every lie the defendant told the police. So if, say, the defendant told six different officers that she was raped, we would file six different charges, and ask the judge to sentence her to the maximum on each, to be served consecutively. I.e., six years in jail. Good prosecutors know how to charge things the right way. It's not a perfect solution by any means, but I think it's better than a lot of people would believe.
Just to add on to what locomotive breath said -- I have a friend, a defense lawyer, who recently got a man acquitted of rape. It was a he-said, she-said case: they were at a party, they were both drunk, they had sex, she cried rape the next afternoon. She did not have any injuries and there were no signs of violence.
My friend is only a few years out of law school, same as me. He's hardly a high-priced lawyer. But he's a good one. The good ones don't necessarily come with big fat price tags.
Sadly, Elizabeth, most prosecutors don't bother with false rape claims.
The larger reality is that innocent men accused of rape almost always suffer much more than the liars who caused them to arrested. Just a few of the recent cases that I chronicle in my web site FALSE RAPE SOCIETYattest to that:
Devin LaSalle was the 32-year-old man who was having consensual sex with his lover Mrs. Tracy Roberson when Mrs. Roberson’s husband interrupted them. Mrs. Roberson told her husband that Mr. LaSalle was raping her so the husband shot Mr. LaSalle dead. Fortunately most wrongly accused men don't pay the ultimate price, but they pay a heavy enough price.
Armand Villasana served 21 months in prison for a rape he didn’t commit, and for which his false accuser’s perjury couldn’t be punished because the statute of limitations had expired.
Cleveland Kennedy spent 75 days in jail for a rape he didn’t commit while his young accuser was treated to a holiday abroad to get over her “ordeal.” After the girl’s lie was finally exposed, she served no time for it.
Then there was the Stockholm man who was apprehended after 14 police cars surrounded his apartment for a rape he didn’t commit. His accuser spent no time in jail for her lie.
Then there was the college professor who spent nine days in jail and was suspended from his job. His accuser served all of eight days in jail for her lie.
And don't forget the man who was hauled into custody within just 30 minutes after Kara Dison fabricated a tale that he raped her.
And then there were the two men arrested because of serial false accuser Tracy Brooks’ false accusations. What happened to Ms. Brooks? Suspended sentence – no jail time.
Timothy Wagner spent 97 days in jail based on a rape charge that was neither reliable nor credible. No charges were lodged against his incredible accuser.
Andrew Honeywell was jailed for 12 hours based on his wife’s lie that he raped her.
John Mullholland, a 27-year-old father of two was arrested for rape based on a woman’s lie.
Then there was the step-father jailed for four days based on his step-daughter’s false rape allegation.
And I could go on and on. But I won't. Check my site -- these are all from recent mainstream news media stories.
Locomotive Breath -
One of the Duke 3 actually had video evidence that he was somewhere else when the fabricated "rayyyype" was supposed to have occurred. Even with that, and the glaring cases of misconduct on the part of everyone from the police, to the medical center, to Duke U itself, I've heard that the defense costs were well over $5 million. If you consider that "moderately priced" then we are obviously in completely different economic situations.
What's really frightening about that case is the way some people still cling to the belief that "something" happened, even if it wasn't "rayyyyype."
"Why shouldn't the liar who gave the false report have to pay in some way?"
Well, obviously, the liar should have to pay – but the problem is the same one you have in most rape cases: accuser accuses, the accused denies. Who the hell knows exactly what happened, except the two of them?
And it can get worse – the two people might both believe they are telling the truth. How do twelve strangers sort that out?
I'm a prosecutor, and rape cases where the principals are acquaintances (or so-called "date rape" cases) are about my least favorite to try. And we usually lose them, out of proportion with other crimes.
But you can't just decide never to prosecute them! Just as there are false accusations or rape, as with any crime, there sure as hell are real cases of rape.
They're hard to sort out, though. And my sad observation is, if rapists stuck to women they know personally, they would almost always get away with it.
"Men have the right to sleep with acquaintances if they so desire, just as women do. Men have a right to sexual freedom, just as women do."
Choosing to be a gentleman doesn't require giving up any "rights".
Why should women who falsely accuse men of rape care? There is no sense of shame anymore. Everyone is forgiven and nobody is judged.
To give you an idea of how bad it is, you guys jumped all over Jake for suggesting men should be raised to be gentlemen and taught not to sleep around as much. I don't blame anyone. We've all been brainwashed to believe chivalry is dead and that men NEED sex.
But, if you sue that person for false accusation of rape. It will be blasted by all the anti male, groups.
because " it will mean that real rapes wont be reported by the women incase a counter suit is made"
i have read on some blogs, where they wouldnt mind 100 innocent men being put in prison, if it meant 5 cases of real rape was prosecuted.
Merurior, most of the feminists are happy to delude themselves that innocent men are not going to prison; that false claims are a myth. You are also correct that they have no concern for innocent men but only for innocent women.
Although false reporting of rape is a crime whose victims are almost exclusively male, it has become so embroiled in the feminist sexual assault milieu that discussing it as a potentially significant problem for men is verboten because such view does not conform to the feminist rape metanarrative. In fact, this crime may be unique among all crimes because virtually the entire public discourse about it is dominated by persons who insist it is not a serious public threat. At least not to men. If it is a threat at all, it’s to women, they insist.
In any event, when the crime of false reporting is discussed, it is typically viewed through a gynocentric lens that blinks at the harm it causes innocent men. News reports about false rape claims take on an almost surreal cookie-cutter redundancy. Police typically adopt an indifference to the male victims, instead choosing to chide the false accuser for wasting police time. More disturbing is that news accounts often report a police officer, sexual assault counselor or judge chiding the false accuser for the "real" harm she's caused -- not to the man wrongly accused or to other potential men she might accuse -- but to hypothetical, unknown, even unborn women whose reports of real rapes might be looked upon with suspicion because of the lie. The one thing that a judge is never heard to say in these cases is the following: “I need to make an example out of you so that women will stop falsely accusing men of rape.”
I provide a sampling of such cases in the following post at my Web site, False Rape Society: How Women Became 'Victims' of a Crime That Only Targets Men: False Rape Claims in the Feminist Rape Culture
i emailed you this list, i live in the UK, and we have a lot of accusations too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7265307.stm
False allegations of rape may make for gripping headlines in the newspapers, but they can also ruin the lives of those men who've been accused despite being innocent
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-493352/Woman-falsely-cried-rape-EIGHT-times-spared-jail.html
A woman who made eight separate false claims of rape or sexual assault has been spared jail.Gemma Gregory, 28, accused seven different men over a six-year period. Former boyfriends were subjected to police questioning and DNA testing to clear their names.Her fantasy stories also wasted huge amounts of police time.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-450374/Two-months-girl-rape-lie-ruined-cabbies-life.html
Two months for girl whose rape lie ruined cabbie's life, Married father-of-two Aftab Ahmed, 44, lost his house, livelihood and good name after a 16-year-old passenger accused him of attacking her when she was senseless through drink.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-508637/Cancer-sufferer-commits-suicide-Blackpool-beach-falsely-accused-rape.html
frail grandfather killed himself after a woman he refused to lend money to accused him of rape in revenge, an inquest heard.
James Bamber, who was 82 and had prostate cancer, was "highly unlikely" to have been physically capable of having sex or attacking the woman.
and theres many many many more.. the last one led to a man killing himself..
Mercurior,
So what if anti-male groups get upset over suing for false allegations? The point is to fight for justice and fairness, not worry about how the unjust group will "feel."
Richard,
Your equate chivalry with never having sex outside of marriage. It seems like you enjoy the idea that men are being falsely accused of rape to "pay them back" for doing so--for not being the "gentleman" that you think they should be. Is it your opinion that men do not need sex and should sit home with their legs crossed? If so, I disagree --sex is an important part of life. But that is a whole different discussion. The legal system should not be used unfairly to force men into behaving the way that YOU want them to.
Celibacy = chivalry?
Denying women agency = sexism.
Responding to desire with disbelief isn't chivalry, it's chauvinism -- if not a pathetic lack of confidence.
What sort of man turns down a sexual relationship thinking, "Hoo boy would she ever regret it!"
Regret happens sometimes, and sometimes regret drives women to do some really awful things, but being so fearful of her regret that you won't allow for the possibility of mutual pleasure isn't chivalry. It's low self-esteem.
laika's last woof,
Good points. But it's more than low self-esteem. It is the desire to see other men denied sexual freedom by instilling fear of being jailed, fired from a job, or having their good name ruined. Low self esteem says, "I don't deserve this." Denying men sexual freedom and agency as you put it, is more than chauvinism, it is fascist behavior that should be abhorred.
Might I mention the larger picture on this. Helen speak of right and wrong, legal and illegal, just and unjust. But the world is big a gray area and not so black and white.
Factor in a few more angles: Alcohol, hormones, physical attraction, religion, gossip, guilt, regret, low self-esteem, high self-esteem and a pile of other stuff and you have a recipe for disaster in the making.
Police officers now have video cameras, our streets are littered with all sorts of monitoring devices, computers save data, cellphone records and emails. Burglars leave finger prints and then sell their loot on ebay. Bank robbers take money with serial numbers.
Evidence in other crimes is incredibly cut and dried. However, bedrooms aren't equipped with video and audio recording devices, well, most aren't. Many victims of rape have bruises and injuries, but not all.
So for the crime of rape it may become he said/she said, in which case the credibility of the victim and the accused must come into play. And that is where things get murky. There was case locally awhile back where an 18 year old girl didn't feel so well at a party and found a bedroom at the house to lie down. She woke up a few hours later with a strange man raping her. The girl didn't have any bruises or injuries and the judge felt she should have never been at the party or lay down in a bedroom. It was her fault. So the blame game can go both ways.
The best advice I have for everyone is think a bit before you have sex with an acquaintance. I'm not so sure I agree with Helen that sex is absolutely necessary, I think it is more optional. Just because somebody, male or female, is willing to have sex with you doesn't mean you should go running for the mattress. Ask a few questions, be a little judgmental, if the prospective sex partner seems a little goofy or unstable then use your head and don't get involved. Don't delude yourself and think for a minute the legal system will protect you.
Thanks for the list you sent to me, Mercurior. And thanks to Dr. Helen for giving this issue an important forum. False Rape Society
Men have a right to sexual freedom, just as women do.
Dr Helen, this is an intriguing statement. Would you consider expanding on it, if not here and now, at some point? What is the source of this right? Should we be free of negative consequences that might come from exercising it? What, if any, responsibilities go along with that right?
(I think that falsely reporting a crime should be a crime itself. There should be serious consequences to anyone making a false accusation against another, whether it be for rape or anything else.)
Do the benefits of sexual freedom outweigh the risks? (At least one person here has said no.) Have relationships between the sexes improved since - well, since whenever people started talking about sexual freedom?
Cham said...
Just because somebody, male or female, is willing to have sex with you doesn't mean you should go running for the mattress.
Don't delude yourself and think for a minute the legal system will protect you.
An excellent and pragmatic viewpoint.
While I agree with Helen that the current climate is fascist on the subject of sex (as well as many other subjects) where it seems that we disagree is I don't think anyone gets to live in the world they think they "should" have - we all have to live in the world as it is. Any rational definition of "sexual freedom" has to include the freedom to say "no thanks" - which is the very definition of "rape."
Risk Management is the process of Risk Assessment and Risk Acceptance. Risk assessment also has 2 parts - probability and severity. An intelligent approach to risk management weighs the likelihood of a negative result, and how negative it could possibly be, with the corresponding likelihood of a positive outcome and how positive it could be. If the reward potential appears to be worth the risk then the person goes ahead. If it doesn't, then they need to be free to not do it.
I don't see making people aware of the risks as being somehow trying to deprive them of their freedom. I think Duncan would have ended up with a great deal more freedom if he had turned down the woman's overtures than he has now, having accepted them.
I don't think it is possible for any legal system to "protect" people from their own bad and foolish choices. The reason that such choices have been historically considered bad or foolish is because they have negative consequences. The best that any legal system can do is find and punish the perpetrators - but in that case the harm has already been done.
Was it Ben Franklin who coined the phrase "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"? If a man got so drunk in a bar that he couldn't get home and passed out on a park bench and woke up to find that he had been rolled and relieved of his wallet, watch, cell phone, and anything else of value he had on him, my response would be - "well, if you had acted differently you could have prevented that from happening." Philosophically I agree with the judge in the case that Cham cited - no amount of law can ever replace good judgment and decision making on the part of the individual. I really don't want to get mugged, so one of the things I don't do is get so drunk that I pass out on a bench. And, so far it has been effective enough that I never have been mugged. I don't see this as being any sort of "infringement on my freedom", but actually as an exercise in free choice which has given me results that I like.
There is nothing in any legal system which can "un-rayyyype" that girl. Even if the perp were publicly executed, she has still been raped. Different choices on her part could have completely prevented that from happening to her. I fundementally disbelieve the philosophy that holds that the entire world has to change so that I get to do whatever I want without any bad things happening to me. I think the burden lies with me to realistically assess the situations in front of me and make my choices accordingly.
To me, that is the ultimate "freedom" - the ability to have some control over my own destiny. I think it is high self-esteem, rather than low, which leads someone to say "No, I'm not going to do something which is going to hurt me."
but the thing is, if they get upset.. they can bring into play higher paid lawyers, and it will be defeated. look at the legal teams for NOW, and look at the legal team a poor (man) can bring into play.. do you really think a man could win.
that was my point, These organisations, are rich, and powerful, full of lawyers, to protect women, men would have to pay for all their legal costs, and how many men could afford the same level of legal protection as these organisations.
so even if a man does sue.. chance are these groups will counter sue, or beat the person suing, with law.
Men have hardly any advocates.. women can have so many.
Marbel,
Our justice system is supposed to be blind to gender--but unfortunately, it is not. Women have reproductive rights, men do not. When I talk of men's sexual rights, I am talking about the fact that the sexes are unequal under the law at this point in our history. If a woman gets pregnant, she can abort, even without her husband's consent. As Kathleen Parker says, "if she chooses to have the child, she gets a baby and the man gets an invoice. A man has no say in whether his child is born or aborted."
If a man has sex with a woman, she can easily scream rape without repercussions in almost all cases. No one cares if a man is raped (I have an upcoming column on male rape at Pajamas Media soon). Men are presumed guilty if rape is charged and fired from a job. I know of a woman who actually killed her husband and is still at work at a university.
Yes, there are consequences to having sex at times, however, the consequences should not come from an unfair legal system that presumes all men are guilty if they have sex --that is a moral question that is up to each individual, it is not up to the legal system to punish the entire male species just for being male and desiring sex outside of marriage.
Mecurior,
That makes sense. But the solution is not to back down and be afraid of a lawsuit. It is to find more advocates for men. This is happening with Glenn Sacks and other activists who are trying to change things. If more join the fight and become more aware of men's issues, things might change. If no one does anything, nothing will.
"That’s what our public discourse has embraced in the name of feminism. It’s an element of every allegation of rape…every allegation of wife abuse…every allegation of the molestation of a daughter by her father. And it’s part of the case cited here."
One of my co-workers (and best friend) was arrested at his job, and it wasn't pretty nor fair. "Innocent until proven guilty," was not even considered by the police when they arrested him. Nor in the amount set for bail.
He was in the middle of a divorce, contested by his loving wife of thirteen years. Without going into the background of the divorce, which is important to know, but way too long to be told here, let me just say that something like this was expected, but not to this extent. He was accused of sexual misconduct with his then 10 year old daughter.
To make a horrible and terrible long story short, he pled no contest to stop the wife and the law from putting his daughter on the stand (they did this at this time- in 1977) he wanted to protect his daughter over the objections of his lawyer.
Other friends and myself were in the room when he told his lawyer of his decision to plead no contest even tho he was not guilty of the charges. His friends understood, we all knew how much he loved and cherished his daughter, we had all been around and close to them, all of their lives together.
To finish the story, he lost his job of fifteen years, his daughter and his son, not to even have visitation rights,until they were of age... but he got stuck with a child support that was more in tune with an amount paid today, which was in 1978, an amount that nearly bankrupted him even working two jobs. But, one thing for sure, his friends didn't turn their backs, we helped him as much as he would allow us to.
Years later of course, (as we knew would happen) his ex-wife admitted that it was all a lie and was for revenge and him asking for half (when sold) of their house in the divorce.
He never thought of revenge or taking his ex to court, even tho, he had lost contact with his kids all those years and paid thousands upon thousands of dollars to this woman.
Innocent until proven guilty, well back then there was no such thing in this kind of accusation.
Now, I don't know. I read all the horror stories in the papers and on the net, but without being there, knowing the people involved, I usually withhold my opinion.
Which is wrong? Or is it?
Justice is blind, it takes you and me and a functional, fair legal system to make it different.
Papa Ray
False Accusations: A True Story - All Charges Dropped!
http://jsoltys.wordpress.com/2008/04/25/false-accusations-a-true-story-all-charges-dropped/
Low self esteem? Perhaps. The things I have been through, and the results thereof, whatever the reasons are that anyone else sees, are real, and totally destroyed me financially, destroyed my faith in honesty and fairness, in the legal system, and because of the above, generally in mankind. I pick my battles carefully. One can no longer chance a stumble when there is simply no place to fall.
It is not the individual I fear. An individual is usually rational, logical, and realizes we have two ears, two eyes and one mouth for a reason. It is the mob mentality that has screwed things all up.
I have no real problem with solitude, yet some with getting lonely at times. But I get over it.
The bad part of solitude, is it has made me an extremely opinionated individual, right or wrong. And I couldn't care less, right or wrong, what anyone else thinks, except for a chosen few. And they are loved ones, and those whose names are on my paycheck.
Well, as to Dr. Helen's view of the importance of sex for both men and women, I look upon that as coming purely from a woman's perspective. And I don't mean any disrespect to Dr. Helen in saying that as I truly love and respect her.
But speaking strictly as a man, I don't need sex to live. I do however need money to live. Hmmm. Sex? Or money. That seems to be a no brainer to me.
It goes without saying that I enjoy sex as much as any other man, but I'm not about to allow my enjoyment of sex to interfere with my financial stability.
But then I really don't have sex. I make love. That's what being a man means. Loving, cherishing, giving pleasure to your partner.
The problem is that the modern American girl does not look upon a man as a partner. But rather, as seen on Sex in the City (they should have named that show Sluts on Parade), men are looked upon as someone to bed and then complain about to your girlfriends.
Such is the state of affairs in today's society. Women demand total respect from men, while giving none in return. It stems from the nature of the legal system that has developed over the centuries.
The law is set up to protect women from men. There is no law to protect men from women. Therefore, she has all the power in court. All of it. He has none.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. So, in the current situation, what does anyone expect women to do with their absolute power over men in court? Other than abuse it absolutely, I mean.
The Air Force did a study of over 500 rape allegations in the 1980's, using lie detector tests to examine veracity. Confronted with the prospect of lie detection, 27% admitted up front that their allegations were false. After testing, a full 60% of rape allegations were deemed to be false.
This would seem to be the best possible data, given that involuntary lie detector tests are not an option elsewhere in our society. My post on the Air Force study (via Warren Farrell's book The Myth of Male Power) here.
Personally, I think the punishment for false accusations of rape, where they can be determined, should be exactly the same as for rape. This is a very serious crime, the prevalence of which is undoubtedly due in significant measure to the fact that it is almost never punished. Imagine what the rape rates would be if rape were legal.
When I talk of men's sexual rights, I am talking about the fact that the sexes are unequal under the law at this point in our history.
Thanks for the response, Dr Helen. Always enjoy your perspective.
"Your equate chivalry with never having sex outside of marriage."
Actually I never mentioned the word marriage. Being a gentleman or chivalrous is the male equivalent of not being a slut. Are you arguing that men should be sluts? I grew up with five women in the house and my father always taught me to respect them. He also taught me that sex was more than just something men "need".
"It seems like you enjoy the idea that men are being falsely accused of rape to "pay them back" for doing so--for not being the "gentleman" that you think they should be."
I don't know where you get that from my post but ok...I don't think you understand where I was going. My point is that no one is ashamed of anything anymore. Why should they be? No one is held accountable. If you do something wrong you go on TV, cry a little, ask for forgiveness and soon you'll be writing a book making millions. My point was that we should bring the concept of shame back, don't know how but we should. If you accuse someone of rape and they did not do it you should go to jail and in my opinion you should not be allowed to appear on TV, radio, write a book about it, etc. for the rest of your life.
"Is it your opinion that men do not need sex and should sit home with their legs crossed?"
It's not my opinion that men don't need sex, it's a fact. If I went my whole life without sex is it your professional opinion that I would burst and die? It would sure suck, but I wouldn't die. Being a gentleman does not mean men SHOULD NOT HAVE SEX. That's a big leap.
I also have two daughters. Now, were either of them raped, I would seek the maximum penalty allowable. If they claimed rape, I know it would be true, for I raised them.
Man, this subject makes me crazy. There is nowhere I can beach my boat.
br549 said...
I also have two daughters. Now, were either of them raped, I would seek the maximum penalty allowable.
There was a case recently on the east coast where a woman "withdrew" consent in the middle of the sex act and the man "continued for 5-10 seconds." Years ago it became something of a joke when a guy was convicted of rape for taking 15-30 seconds to stop and was thus dubbed "the 30-second rapist." Now it seems that men's margin of non-criminality has been cut to 1/3rd.
What would you consider the appropriate "maximum penalty" for not maintaining enough detachment during sex to be able to stop instantly and withdraw within 5-10 seconds? (kinda knocks being "carried away with passion" into a cocked hat, doesn't it?)
If they claimed rape, I know it would be true, for I raised them.
And there, in a nutshell, is what makes this issue unresolvable.
Man, this subject makes me crazy. There is nowhere I can beach my boat.
Well, then you'd better hope you have enough provisions to stay at sea for as long as it takes for this subject to get shaken out.
Yea, and here is something that everyone left out.
Prostitution is not the oldest profession by accident.
Whores serve a purpose. If a man "just has to have sex" and not "sit home with his legs crossed", he can go see a whore, pay the fee, get his "sex" and go on his way, knowing that unless he was an asshole and hurt her or cheated her, he won't have to worry about a thing. Unless of course he didn't use protection.
In my little town there are no "whorehouses", but everyone knows where to go to pick up a girl. Besides that, nowadays, they are in the bars looking for business.
They are not hard to find.
Papa Ray
On a lighter note, papa ray, sales is the oldest profession. She has to sell that thang first.
zed, I expect you do not have daughters. I expect you have not raised any children. I suspect you think with the little head too much, and the bigger head too little. So I don't know how to ask you to see it from a father's perspective, were one of your daughters placed there.
I don't understand many things. How a man can rape a woman. The damage it does. It could possibly destroy her for life. How a woman can falsely accuse a man of such a crime, knowing full well it will destroy his life.
In mid coitus, the big head and the little head do lose communication of sorts. Little heads have little brains. So I can see it taking a few seconds to put on the brakes. Over the centuries, a lot of women have gotten pregnant that way, I'd say.
But you went to all the trouble of coming up with this recent case on the east coast for what, in order to jump in my shit? I'm not your enemy, dumb ass. However, it's a cinch you're one of the type of "dudes" I taught my daughters to stay away from.
'Alcohol, hormones, physical attraction, religion, gossip, guilt, regret, low self-esteem, high self-esteem and a pile of other stuff and you have a recipe for disaster in the making.'
Not if people have enough strength of character to take responsibility for their own actions. Regret drunken sex the next day? Time to think about not drinking so much the next time you go out, not how you can make the man suffer for your own stupid decision. That women are not encouraged to take responsibility for what they do is what makes things 'murky'.
'
"considered the norm" can mean that it was said to be the norm even though it wasn't actually the norm.
Based on my memory, it wasn't actually the norm.'
'considered the norm' meaning that it was a societal expectation.The common sense of the time. Regardless of how many people in the 50s actually had pre-marital sex, the expectation was that people would wait till marriage, and not cheat after marriage.
br549 said...
I'm not your enemy, dumb ass.
Nor am I yours, sir.
Marbel,
Thanks for the civil tone. It seems that even when you disagree with others, you do so in a polite and reasonable manner by asking questions or for clarification. We could all learn from that.
To others,
Let's try to keep the conversation civil. In other words, no direct name calling. I understand that some of us disagree but there is no need to berate others, just make your point.
Theres been stories about how women have been pressured into claiming rape or abuse, by their partners.. to get what they wnt ina divorce.. I am sure br's kids are good, but.. theres a pressure on all young women to cry rape.. even when it isnt.. theres stories of consentual sex, but she removed her consent the day after..
Now. some women do this for the power, some because they are pushed into it by others.
Unless you can monitor your kids all the time, bad people bad ideas can creep in.. The term rape is a very gray area.. does it mean consent can be pulled the day after.. or during.. even the most perfect of people can fall for the claim rape route.. and it happens
"Low self esteem says, 'I don't deserve this.' Denying men sexual freedom and agency as you put it, is more than chauvinism, it is fascist behavior that should be abhorred."
I do abhor it, but do you not recognize that "No one else deserves happiness either, dammit!" follows closely from, "I don't deserve this?"
It's the same thing with Islamofascists: they can't have sex and don't think we should either. They're so driven by envy they're willing to commit mass murder. So, too, celibate guys moralizing about the sexually active and putting them in legal jeopardy are phenomena related by degree.
However, the guy that prompted our exchange is working from a completely different playbook than the one both of us thought he was using. He's not a prude -- he just has a normal male ego manifesting itself in a way we first mistook for prudishness.
"My point is ..."
Okay, I'm starting to get you now: when OTHER MEN have sex it's shameful and wrong, but sex with YOU is transcendent and beautiful "lovemaking".
I've been known to take that attitude myself on occasion. We men have to feel we have some kind of advantage over other men, that our easygoing manner, lovemaking skill and ability to make her laugh are unique and special gifts that other men don't have which make US the only REAL choice for our women.
I'm wise enough to know on a strictly intellectual level it isn't true, that there is a lot of stiff competition out there who feel exactly the same way about themselves and we can't all be right, but I still feel like I'm the MAN when I'm with my woman, the best she'll ever know, an attitude which also happens to be a basic expectation women have of men.
Were you to stop believing that your earth-shaking lovemaking transcended the banal, slutty "mere sex" offered by other men you'd probably lose your mojo.
All I have to say is Crystal Gail Magnum, Duke University, LaCrosse team and Mike Nifong!
It was a false allegation with the potential to ruin FOUR innocent lives - thank God it didn't last any longer than it did!
The point is, women are far too prone to making false rape and paternity allegations, while still treating men like the enemy.
Bottom line - this is not productive, nor does it serve the needs of the innocent victims of all this manipulation - the children. Remember them?
And this crap spouted by feminists about all men being rapists really needs to succumb to a little dose of common sense!
Wow, with things trending the way they are, virtual reality sex with real partners via the Internet may become very popular in the future.
VR sex can’t be forced, can’t get anyone pregnant and participants can logout anytime they want. May not be as fun, but it sure beats getting your life destroyed by false allegations.
Investment possibilities? Heh heh.
actually your not far wrong, thats the way things are going, and who is to say it wouldnt be a good thing. not to mention the STD's or other things..
VR sex can’t be forced, can’t get anyone pregnant and participants can logout anytime they want.
Indeed. Wonder how long will it take till only conservative Christians and Muslims are having sex for that other purpose, you know, procreation? I hope for something better for my children and as yet potential grandchildren... dare I hope?
Oh and Dr. Helen, thanks for your kind words. I didn't disagree, was just puzzled by your comment, and when you answered my question (that everyone has the right to equal legal protection) you removed that puzzlement.
Marbel,
I also meant that in general, you seem to be very polite when you do disagree with others which I very much appreciate.
Do you know of a website that lists the laws against false accusations by state? We need to know of the names of lying accusers and they should also be prosecuted.
BowlsRUS - The spirit of Nifong and Crystal Gail Mangum lives on. Sad.
Another famous example involved Kobe Bryant.
Could Mr. Duncan sue the police department for firing him without evidence? I realize police officers are given mandatory leave while a case against them is being investigated and I think that is good, but it should not be a permanent firing without a trial.
I once heard a funny solution for the false accusations problem. If someone gets falsely accused of some crime, and is later found to be innocent, then they get to do whatever it is they were accused of!
So, Richard Jewell gets to blow up the olympics.
marbel i love your arguments, there is nothing malicious in what i say either, (unless someone makes a personal attack on me), we may disagree on a few things, but i respect your passion about it..
I bet it would be hard to find any list of laws, serket, law is complex, laws in different states must be 1000 times more complicated
I contacted the reporter to see if he had the accusers name and his response was: "No, it's always been blacked out."
jake --
What about abstinence is "gentlemanly"?
richard --
What about chivalry deals with sex?
"richard --
What about chivalry deals with sex?"
Well if you don't think honor, respect and courtesy toward women is important then I guess it has nothing to do with sex.
Well, I dont tend to go with drunks, swivel eyed lunatics or outright gold digging bimbos, so I've never had this sort of problem. Absent giving up on women entirely; and I'm nowhere near old enough to do that, I would only say be a bit careful.
Personally, I've always let the woman control how fast or slow things go, they have always (rightly) taken this as respect and regard for them as people; result, I've always had a wonderful time with them.
If all else fails, let Her get on top, hard to scream rape then.
@Richard:
*groan* There you go again.
I guess the subtlety of my last response was misplaced. I'll spell it out for you:
Your belief that when YOU have sex it's chivalrous but for other men it's a dirty deed is not so much a product of your respect for women as a projection of your own ego, in your specific case a "rescue fantasy" wherein you of course portray the rescuer.
I understand the way you feel -- it's perfectly natural to think there's something special about YOU that makes you better than other men. The difference is that I understand intellectually that those feelings are not entirely honest and so don't make a fool of myself in intellectual discussions.
You're not God's Gift to Women. Get over yourself.
"Your belief that when YOU have sex it's chivalrous but for other men it's a dirty deed is not so much a product of your respect for women as a projection of your own ego, in your specific case a "rescue fantasy" wherein you of course portray the rescuer."
It's actually pretty sad that you don't understand that I am speaking of the relationship with women BEFORE sex if any sex is had at all.
Where in any of my comments did I say that any sex I have is "chivalrous"? Whatever that means. Where did I write about "rescue fantasies", again, whatever that means. Seriously, I think the last 30-40 years have destroyed any sense of respect, honor, self control and apparently reading comprehension that the average male used to possess.
Let's see, not only have you proven my point for me ("I'm different because of what I do BEFORE the sex" -- right, God's Gift to Women, all hail Prince Richard!) you're also so deep in denial you think the reason I don't acknowledge your superiority over other men is because a deficiency in my reading comprehension causes me to fail to apprehend your greatness.
It was indeed I, not you, who made the observation that your views on sex constitute a rescue fantasy. You don't recognize your attitude as a rescue fantasy for the same reason most schizophrenics don't realize they're schizophrenic. That doesn't make them any less schizophrenic, nor does your failure to acknowledge you live in a Quixotic dream world make it any less true.
Believing that somehow you're the only man out there who treats women the "right way", despite the millions of other sexually active men in successful relationships, clearly shows just how ridiculously egotistical and deluded you truly are. Doubtless you consider it a tragedy that all those mistreated women in their shoddy relationships don't recognize how much more chivalrous you are compared to those other losers. As sour grapes go that ranks right up there with "nice guys finish last".
So, once again, get a clue and get over yourself.
Wow...that was the grand daddy of all projections. Gratz.
You're confusing projection with experience. I've met your type before.
"I've met your type before."
Riiight. Just give me your email address and I'll contact you whenever I need to know what I'm actually thinking.
I asked you to show me where I wrote what you attributed to me and you went off on a Don Quixote tangent and never produced what I challenged you on. If you want to argue against teaching boys to respect and honor women well go right ahead. Your entitled to your opinion but your not going to tell me what my opinion and positions on this topic are. I'll stick to my own opinions and not what you THINK I mean by what I write. Have a nice life. I'm sure the psychic business will do well in this economy.
"I asked you to show me where I wrote what you attributed to me ..."
Unlike all other men, Richard is chivalrous and doesn't need sex:
"We've all been brainwashed to believe chivalry is dead and that men NEED sex."
But Richard certainly wants sex ... and he gets it, too, he'll have you know:
"It [celibacy] would sure suck, but I wouldn't die."
But Richard does draw a sharp distinction between his own noble sexually-active self and the dastardly competition:
"Being a gentleman or chivalrous is the male equivalent of not being a slut."
And that distinction has nothing to do with marriage:
"Actually I never mentioned the word marriage."
So pre-marital sex is ok for Richard but not for other men, apparently because they, like beasts, think they need it, whereas the Ubermansch is merely getting what he wants -- with all due chivalry, of course.
I'm no psychic, but your mind is pathetically easy to read. Were you offering a serious critique of men's behavior you'd get down to specifics, like being honest, keeping promises, not pretending to feelings that aren't there, not preying on women in an obvious state of emotional vulnerability, that sort of thing. And then there's love -- nary a mention of the most important reason of all for intimacy, more important even than marriage.
But such details aren't the point of your self-aggrandizing lament. Instead, your narrative uses broad concepts like "honor" and "chivalry" and attaches them uniquely to Guess Who? For you "victims" of "male sluttiness" are those poor bachelorettes having sex with men other than Richard. Being The Richard among men is apparently the most important quality that separates the chivalrous from the sluts.
"I'm no psychic, but your mind is pathetically easy to read."
You're no psychic but you can read my mind...oookay.
"Were you offering a serious critique of men's behavior you'd get down to specifics, like being honest,"
Yea..that's called being honorable which I've mentioned numerous times. Notice "honest" and "honorable" sorta look alike no?
"..keeping promises, not pretending to feelings that aren't there,"
Again, this is called honor and self-respect.
"...not preying on women in an obvious state of emotional vulnerability, that sort of thing."
Right, this is where the "respecting and honoring women" part OF WHAT IVE ALREADY SAID comes to play.
I'm not gonna try to be a psychic or use some other method you apparently use to read minds..or try to..but you seem to have a problem with men...period. I've said exactly what you just said but somehow I'm claiming to be Gods gift to women and some "Ubermansch". Please. Go call Dr. Phil or something. Don't take out your personal psychological issues on people you don't know.
*snort*
You're the one who has a problem with men. I only have a problem with you: you think you're the only decent guy left on the planet.
Being that I'm the one calling you full of baloney it has always been me standing up for the rest of mankind.
Most guys are fairly "chivalrous", if that means not saying, "I love you," just to get laid, but you seem to think you're the Last Righteous Man in Gomorrah (but not the celibate kind of righteous ... *snicker*)
You remind me of what Chris Rock said about ignorant people wanting credit for stuff they're supposed to do:
"Oh, I ain't never been to jail!"
"What do you want, a cookie?"
At least when religious nuts go on about the evils of fornication they're actually making a painful sacrifice. Your "I could be celibate if I wanted to" version lambasting the evils of everyone else's fornication amounts to something like a Jesse Jackson hunger strike.
Supposedly the way to beat Don Quixote is to agree that he's the last chivalrous knight in the realm, but to agree with you that the rest of mankind lives in sin -- as you define it -- is to offer you the backhanded compliment of sainthood. All you deserve is to be laughed at for doing such a poor job of controlling your ego.
"*snort*"
Very fitting.
"I only have a problem with you: you think you're the only decent guy left on the planet."
No you THINK I do. I never said that.
"Most guys are fairly "chivalrous", if that means not saying, "I love you," just to get laid,"
The exact qualities I was arguing in favor of. Glad you agree.
"but you seem to think you're the Last Righteous Man in Gomorrah (but not the celibate kind of righteous ... *snicker*)"
No YOU SEEM TO THINK THAT. I'm arguing for teaching men the same qualities you claim to support but when I say it I'm trying to be "Gods gift to women".
"Oh, I ain't never been to jail!
"What do you want, a cookie?"
I never asked for recognition. Only that you not put words in my mouth. Besides, this is a comment section for opinions. Do you want a cookie for yours?
"At least when religious nuts go on about the evils of fornication they're actually making a painful sacrifice."
How do you know I'm not religious? Again with your assumptions.
"Your "I could be celibate if I wanted to" version lambasting the evils of everyone else's fornication amounts to something like a Jesse Jackson hunger strike."
Please show me where I wrote "I could be celibate if I wanted to"? PLEASE. And I mean the actual quote that matches the one you gave not your two bit psycho analysis of what I wrote. I wrote men can go without sex without dying. Is that wrong? Do you believe if a man unfortunately goes his whole life without sex that he would just keel over and die one day?
"Supposedly the way to beat Don..."
I lost you at Don. Again with Don Quixote. Why not just comment on what I ACTUALLY write. It's pointless with you.
This is over. You obviously see no problem with fabricating quotes and intentions for other people from your amateur "made for TV" movie psychology training.
Have a happy life.
"Most guys are fairly "chivalrous", if that means not saying, "I love you," just to get laid,"
"The exact qualities I was arguing in favor of. Glad you agree."
Well as long as you're feeling magnanimous and giving most of the rest of us guys credit for also being basically decent we're done here.
Loss of reputation is one of the many things I have suffered since being falsely accused of rape.
I have evidence in the form of government documents that show :
Police, prosecutorial, and judicial misconduct in violating constitutional and civil rights are
coordinated between local, state, and federal agencies in criminal as well as civil proceedings.
Arrest and detention without probable cause, unconstitutional and repeated searches. Jailed on
charges procerred by perjured testimony.....testimony collectively known to be false prior to arrest.
Jailed 5 months based on discovery NONE OF WHICH WAS IN AFFIDAVIT FORM. I have proof of
my pro se Federal Appellate and US Supreme Court filings but the clerks' offices did not file those
cases yet mailed bogus decisions to me. In complete isolation, who could I complain to?
Even if those cases were properly adjudicated, there was blatent abuse of discretion by judges.
Years of certified mailings to Presidents and Department of Justice produced no investigations.
Letters signed by Richard Lugar and Dan Coats cannot be trusted as authentic. Steven Hatfills'
experience with the government was a picnic compared to what they are doing to me.
And, as a result of the aforementioned violations, a totality of circumstances show malicious
and vindictive intervention into every aspect of my life. The goverment has relentlessly manipulated
my life socially, physically and mentally in a manner similar to Steven Hatfill ( anthrax investigation )
only worse and over a longer period of time. The government has destroyed my relationships
between family and friends, and has prevented the media from publicizing their wrongs. The
government has even stolen and manipulated my certified mailings. I have been reduced to the
slave status of my African ancesters by this government. This government was even controlling
my criminal defense lawyer! He knew I was being falsely accused but did nothing but quit being my
lawyer when I questioned, among other things, why the Affidavit for Probable Cause was signed
by a prosecutor, Carol Orbison.....why there was no Judicial Officers' signature, and was not in
affidavit form! He KNEW the State was wrong.
In the following cases you will find the very worst official corruption.
State of Indiana v. Edwin L. Jones,Case No. 49 G069001CF007921, Edwin L. Jones v. Indianapolis
Police Department et al, US District Court Southern District of Indiana Cause No. Misc 90-134 IP,
Edwin L. Jones v. Indianapolis Police Dept.et al Cause No. 91-1594, 7th Circuit Federal Appleate Court
of Appeals, Edwin L. Jones v. Indianapolis Police Dept et al, Cause No. 91-7923 , US Supreme Court,
Request for Investigation filed with the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed 9-18-92,
against Ali Talib.
I am looking for honest, bold representation to take on the goverment. I want compensation and them
out of my life.
edwinjones@peoplepc.com
317-709-6995
視訊做愛聊天室avdvd-情色網ut13077視訊聊天A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費Ａ片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520plus論壇sex520免費影片85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費Ａ片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費Ａ片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片免費視訊聊天jp成人sex520免費影片
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
視訊交友90739av1688影音娛樂網kiss168成人kiss168下載kiss168成人電影ut影音視訊聊天室13077貓貓論壇台灣18成人網85cc成人片85cc免費情色影片性行為性趣十足辣妹情色視訊真人視訊交友成人貼圖性感影片彩虹a片天堂性感遊戲免費a片下載下載a片
Post a Comment
<< Home