"...the district attorney had not decided whether to press charges against the woman."
It seems that the woman who says she was raped at Hofstra University has now stated that she made the whole story up:
This woman could have destroyed the lives of these young men and the district attorney has not decided whether or not to press charges? And one of the men involved "has no hard feelings?" I am sure he is simply relieved that he will not spend part of his life in jail, but it just goes to show how much power women have in our society when they get away with falsely accusing men and the men are just happy they have not landed in jail. Pressing charges against women who falsely accuse men will stop it from happening in the future. When there are no consequences for horrendous behavior, it escalates. Expect more of this in the future.
The student who alleged she was gang raped by five men inside a Hofstra University dormitory bathroom on Sunday has admitted to making the entire story up, the Nassau County District Attorney's office confirmed on Wednesday night.
Charges against the four men arrested have since been dropped. ...
When asked if he had any reaction to the fact that the woman lied about the incident, Felipe took the high road.
"Basically I have no hard feelings toward her. I don't know why she did it. I don't know her so I don't want to say anything bad about her," Felipe said. "I grew up in an all-women household. I have sisters. All my women are aunts. I respect women. I would never disrespect women, so being accused of that hurt me and my brother, you know? I'm just happy that everything is finally out in the open and we get to go home."
As of late Wednesday night, the district attorney had not decided whether to press charges against the woman. A press conference will be held Thursday morning.
This woman could have destroyed the lives of these young men and the district attorney has not decided whether or not to press charges? And one of the men involved "has no hard feelings?" I am sure he is simply relieved that he will not spend part of his life in jail, but it just goes to show how much power women have in our society when they get away with falsely accusing men and the men are just happy they have not landed in jail. Pressing charges against women who falsely accuse men will stop it from happening in the future. When there are no consequences for horrendous behavior, it escalates. Expect more of this in the future.
Labels: men's rights (or lack thereof)
posted by Helen at 6:20 AM
137 Comments:
I would be filing a lawsuit right about now. Whether the DA tried to get his pound of flesh or not, I would at least be trying to get as many pounds of $100 bills (one pound is worth about $45,400) as I could.
men`s rights(or lack thereof)
it should be clear by now that it is becoming risky for men to go to college these days, what with the underlying theme of socialism, feminism and environmentalism mixed in with the lectures at every step, we have to run the gauntlet of psycho chickens looking to project thier sexual fears onto strangers.
i guess the days of the almighty man has passed thanks to our fearless leaders, dedicated to fairness and equality.
no more the land of the quarterback and the science whizz, college now is the land of the equal and fair, where a 120 pound girl can beat the football team single-handed.
what the hell has this got to do with the real world?
er, nothing.
I had read of an example of a woman being charged in such a case, but I cannot recall any followup to see if she had actually been prosecuted, rather than the charges being quietly dropped once media attention waned, nor can I recall an announcement of any kind of substantive punishment, let alone jail time.
If men want to avoid women like this, then they have no choice but to control themselves and not be sexually active outside of a committed relationship (preferably marriage). Guys who hook up with random women or women they barely know are asking for trouble just as much as a woman who gets drunk at a bar alone and walks home early in the morning.
If they're not going to charge women like this, an interesting - and possibly fair - corresponding policy would be to refuse to charge anyone who beats the living shit out of her.
MikeT:
You are just trying to impose your own morality on this issue.
I'm saying that because plenty of men who didn't sleep with the woman have been accused of rape.
Gary Dotson in Chicago (ten years in jail) is a famous example, as well as the Duke Boys recently.
The Duke Boys had at least been around the accuser; Gary Dotson had never even seen the accuser in his life.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Secondly, you can avoid false accusations with a woman you sleep with by [secretly] videotaping all interaction with her (some men are doing this today, and it has saved them).
If you are accused by a woman you never slept with, you wouldn't have that kind of exculpatory evidence.
"the alleged victim of the sexual assault admitted that the encounter that took place early Sunday morning was consensual."
So she had sex with them? I'm wondering if there's more to this story. Maybe she changed her mind after the first few and they didn't stop? And her attorney explained how she would be cross-examined in court? So she backed off the accusation?
JG: You can't secretly videotape in a place where people have the expectation of privacy. That would be illegal.
Well, this doesn't surprise me in the least. We live in a culture and under a legal system that adamently refuses to hold women accountable for their decisions and actions. Presumably because that would be oppression.
If you think it's bad on university campuses or in the workplace, just wait till you get into divorce court. She has all the power, all of it. He has none.
A friend of mine married a young woman some time ago. And I warned him about her. I told him she's too young, she's neurotic, she's vindictive, and if you marry her she's going to hurt you badly. But he wouldn't listen. "I love her! I love her!" He married her. And she put him through hell.
Once she had two daughters, she had all she needed and wanted. She started screaming at him, slapping him around, drove him out of the house, and divorced him. In court, she accused him of wife abuse, molesting her infant daughters, drug addiction, alcoholism, infedility, name it. All she has to do is say it in open court.
She can make any accusation she wants. It doesn't matter if there is no evidence whatsoever to support her claims--in fact, it doesn't matter if there is direct evidence contradicting her claims--all she has to do is say it in open court. Mandatory court-ordered police investigation.
It cost him $40,000 in legal fees to defend himself against her lies, and in the end the court awarded her custody of the children, of course, $3000/month in alimony and madated that he take and pass a drug test twice a month before he could visit his daughters.
And he's lucky they're actually his daughters. She could have run around behind his back, got knocked up by some boy in a bar, and the result would not have changed.
This is why I, and millions of men like me, refuse to marry the modern American girl. It's not worth it.
The DA should at least expunge the record of the arrest. Otherwise, those arrested have to answer "yes" when asked by prospective employers if they've ever been arrested on a felony charge.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Meanwhile, Crystal Gail Mangum, the woman who falsely accused three Duke students of rape was not charged, allowed to return to and graduate from North Carolina Central University (like someone there would give their hero a failing grade) and, while claiming authorship, has had ghostwritten for her a book about her life story.
If men want to avoid women like this, then they have no choice but to control themselves and not be sexually active outside of a committed relationship (preferably marriage). Guys who hook up with random women or women they barely know are asking for trouble just as much as a woman who gets drunk at a bar alone and walks home early in the morning.
The problem is that you can be accused even if you don't hook up. In fact, you can be accused even if you've never even spoken to the woman. And, by "accused", I mean that you will be taken to the police station, probably charged, and possibly even tried. There are NO standards for evidence when a woman makes an accusation of rape.
There are also none when a woman makes an accusation of sexual harassment (I know about that from personal experience), but that's another issue.
If you're in a situation where something like this could happen, it might be prudent to start keeping a diary. It's easier than it used to be thanks to Blackberries and cell phones. Whenever you head to somewhere or arrive somewhere, make a voice note of where you are and what you're doing. Maybe take a quick photo or two of your surroundings. It's not watertight, but it least it gives you some way to demonstrate your whereabouts at a particular time.
If men want to avoid women like this, then they have no choice but to control themselves and not be sexually active outside of a committed relationship (preferably marriage). Guys who hook up with random women or women they barely know are asking for trouble just as much as a woman who gets drunk at a bar alone and walks home early in the morning.
As has been pointed out, this is no iron clad guarantee, but there are NO iron clad guarantees in life. This advice will dramatically improve your odds of avoiding trouble ... as will using discriminating judgment in the types of people you associate with.
Cham said: You can't secretly videotape in a place where people have the expectation of privacy. That would be illegal.
Well, actually you can; you just face punishment if you're caught. And if it's a case of going to prison for a rape you didn't commit, or a fine or whatever for illegally taping, I know which I'd pick.
Also I'm not sure you're 100% correct about the legality of it. I know that there are states where you can tape a conversation where only one party (i.e., you) is aware of the recording. In others both parties need to know. If videotaping is governed by similar laws (and I don't know for certain, does anyone else know?) then it would be perfectly legal.
I'm still confused by the wording of the article. Its sounds like she had a "consensual" encounter with one or more of the accused.
Also, if she NOT a victim of rape, why is her identity being protected?
If a picture or image was obtained illegally, it can't be used in a court of law.
Slight metaphorical-humor diversion: Fox News has this quote from one of the accused:
"Kevin Taveras said he was looking forward to a hot shower."
Cham, you're clearly not a lawyer so quit trying to play one on the Internet.
Please. It's embarrassing.
Cham makes blanket statements applicable to all jurisdictions (not just the US, but world-wide) with no sources for her view of the law quoted and no interpreting case law.
But damned if she's going to let a man defend himself against a false accusation. Not while Cham is the sheriff in this town.
I assume a video recording wouldn't even be used in court, by the way.
The prosecutor decides whether to go forward with a case, and if he was anybody but Mike Nyfong, he would probably decide not to pursue the case after seeing the video.
This comment has been removed by the author.
A very good, in my opinion, resource for learning about false rape accusations is The False Rape Society. I've not found any better website pertaining to this subject. It's actually quite scary how often the guy who runs this blog posts new entries on new cases of false rape accusations, convictions, and imprisonments (I just wish that I'd known about it during the Kobe Bryant and Duke Lacrosse cases).
One the issue of secretly recording yourself having sex [in your home], the only times when this would be a problem for anybody would be 1) if that person sold or gave away the videos, 2) if you let the authorities see the videos as part of an effort to clear your self, and/or 3) if the other people involved (or some other person) discovered that you were video taping them. Of those three situations, I would be least worried about the second one. Assuming that you weren't using the videos for any nefarious reasons and that you were very secretive about making them, you would have a good chance of convincing a jury - assuming you're even charged with a crime as a result of showing said tapes to the authorities in an effort to clear yourself - that you were making them for your own protection and that, given the truthfulness of your claims (assuming the tapes corroborate your claims), you were completely justified in doing so. If I were on a jury and was faced with having to convict or acquit some guy of violating some evil woman's privacy by taping his sexual encounters with her when it was proven that his fears of being falsely accused were completely justified, I would be very sympathetic towards him and would be very likely to vote for acquittal (assuming that he wasn't doing other things with the videos (like putting them on the internet, which is where so many of them end up)).
"If they're not going to charge women like this, an interesting - and possibly fair - corresponding policy would be to refuse to charge anyone who beats the living shit out of her".
tether. thanks for the laugh, though i`m not sure which is actually the crime, positing legal opinions on a blog, or threatenig physical violence toward the greater female population.
what do you think?
From my admitted limited understanding of US Criminal Law(not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt)...and as far as the procedures of evidence(on a Federal level, States mirror the Feds though in this area from my understanding)...a video tape, even if it was recorded illegally, would be allowed in court. This is because, an individual technically can't deprive someone of their fourth amendment rights. Only an agent of the government can do that. Furthermore, the fourth amendment and the exclusionary rule exist to protect the defendant, not the accuser.
But I'm not a lawyer...so take this all with a grain of salt.
If men want to avoid women like this, then they have no choice but to control themselves and not be sexually active outside of a committed relationship (preferably marriage).
Why do you think that's going to save you? False allegations of abuse and sexual misconduct are frequent accompaniments to divorce proceedings.
The young woman has some sort of probable if she had consensual sex with some 5 guys at the same time. The guys were dumb if this was their idea of a nice evening out, esp. since they are black and she is white and they well know how white America reacts to such things should they become known.They might begin by reading Native Son.The young woman I assume is not going to get a vacation to the Caribbean for Xmas break from her family.
To Mike T:
"If men want to avoid women like this, then they have no choice but to control themselves and not be sexually active outside of a committed relationship (preferably marriage). Guys who hook up with random women or women they barely know are asking for trouble just as much as a woman who gets drunk at a bar alone and walks home early in the morning."
Yep, all these problems would just go away if guys would just stop behaving like, y'know male mammals, right?
Sorry, I stopped feeling guilty about being one a long time ago. In fact, considering that somebody once said "The underlying principle of American feminism is that women should have options and men should have obligations", I think of your comment as just more feminazi persecution.
I'd like to plug Paul Elam's piece on men's attitudes towards this sort of thing Yawning at Hofstra;
as well as the commentary at the False Rape Society.
As Pierce Harlan remarks regarding the idea that the women should be made to apologize, but NOT be charges with any crime:
"AND THAT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, TELLS US WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS FALSE RAPE CULTURE. KEEPING YOUR PENIS IN A GIRL FOR FIVE SECONDS AFTER SHE SAYS "STOP" IS RAPE AND WILL SEND A BOY TO PRISON FOR MANY YEARS. DESTROYING FOUR LIVES IS "PROBABLY" NOT A CRIME. WHAT IN HELL IS WRONG WITH THESE WOMEN WHO THINK LIKE THAT?!!!!"
Also, if she NOT a victim of rape, why is her identity being protected?
It isn't. Her name is Danmell Ndoye.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roman Wolf:
Your reasoning sounds good.
I think Cham is thinking about an agent of the state (like a police officer) recording something illegally, then it would be inadmissible ("fruit of the poison tree" - the penalty for violating the search and seizure provisions of the Constitution).
On the other hand, I don't think Cham thought that far. She is just kind of spouting stuff she half-heard somewhere.
http://wcbstv.com/cbs2crew/hofstra.university.gang.2.1189619.html
Men: You friggin' DO have a right to defend yourself against false accusations. No matter what Cham says.
as cham said. evidence obtained illegally is inadmissable.
"as cham said. evidence obtained illegally is inadmissable."
-----------
LOL
Either he is consciously trying to be a troll (stir up trouble with a smirk) or he is denser than a bag of hammers.
I don't know which one.
On the other hand, he's going to be a doctor someday, after he finishes his studies, so I have to believe him. Doctors know everything about every subject.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Actually, I suspect we're in for a fairly long wait while Alistair searches through Lexis/Nexis and Westlaw for the relevant case law.
He's not the kind of (non-) doctor that actually produces results, he's more likely the (non-) doctor who wants people to think he's important.
And now I realized I have wasted my time typing this.
she wasn`t sure whether the tape was obtained illegally. she never stated that she was certain of that fact in law. she was stating an opinion. a process most people accept and tolerate.
you failed to make that distinction in your rush to judgement.
i would hazzard a guess that, until one arrives in court and gets a judgement from a judge, nothing exists in legal certitude....no matter what you did, how you did it, who witnessed the event by whatever means of recording.
case law is a record of historic events, and many a jail-house lawyer has made the error of thinking that this means it applies currently.
while most case law gives a broad estimate of judgements, we have all witnessed the kafkaesque final judgements from the bench.
split those hairs baby.
oh yeah, and i wanted to comment about men videotaping themselves having sex with thier partner without the partner`s knowledge...and the type of person who would advocate that action as prophylactic.
are they really protecting themselves against future prosecution or simply acting out of some juvenile sneakiness so they can show thier friends or post the clips on-line to further humiliate thier partner?
and they wonder why the women they come into contact with react the way they do.....
and further that in canada, as i believe is also true in the us, a man is judged based on the actions of the reasonable man.
and so, one has to ask, is it reasonable to suggest that a man would so fear for his freedom that he would videotape his intimate acts with a woman just in case she should 180 in the morning.
the act of a reasonable man, the man who knows right from wrong, the man who is balanced in his personal judgement says....i`ll sleep alone tonight with a big fat copy of lexis/nexis to provide companionship and safety.
It is honestly hard to say that one mayn't record anything that happens inside his own home. What if it were in the name of Art? You are filming a scene and you want the subjects to act naturally.
You can pay a woman $10, $100 or $1000 to have sex with you in front of a camera but sex without the camera would be a crime, it seems.
I state no opinion on the case except to note that any videotape that exists (I haven't seen any links to the coverage of this at all, and my understanding that such exists may be faulty as was someone's earlier reasoning that this was a white-woman-black-man affair) might not redound to the credit of either side.
The eternal revolting fascination - does one really want to know the whole story of this or does one not? Prurient soap-operatic awareness or tastefully averting one's gaze?
and further that in canada, as i believe is also true in the us, a man is judged based on the actions of the reasonable man.
and so, one has to ask, is it reasonable to suggest that a man would so fear for his freedom that he would videotape his intimate acts with a woman just in case she should 180 in the morning.
I don't know about the law in Canada, but in the US, juries do have the power of nullification.
Suppose I was accused of raping someone, produced secretly-made video evidence that I was innocent, and was then charged under some privacy law by a DA. I would naturally opt for a jury trial. Why? Because I would then have the opportunity to explain why I made the tapes and how I felt that my fears were proved correct. I would hope that my lawyer would try to play to the sympathies of a jury in hopes that it might opt to use its power to acquit me of the charges.
As far as illegal video goes it may be used in court. The prosecutor may get it suppressed right until the woman says 'he raped me'. You then get to introduce it to contradict her testimony.
kenlowder is correct, and dr alistar and cham are DEAD wrong.
Once the lady commits perjury, you can bring up the evidence as an exception. This is basically universal in the US as far as I'm aware. If there's anywhere this isn't true it's a major anomaly.
If someone lies in court about you, and you can prove it, the judge wants to know. Even if your evidence is an illegal recording. That's not really the point of the post, though.
it's amazing that the male victim is so forgiving. Doesn't he understand that other women may do this to other men? Perhaps he is aware that she had a mental illness (I am not aware of that). I can't see any other reason to tolerate this disgusting behavior. Rape is serious, and should not be exploited.
"it's amazing that the male victim is so forgiving... I can't see any other reason to tolerate this disgusting behavior."
Here's one: he was the guy who kept going after she said stop.
Look, I don't mean to be sympathetic to her, but I feel like we're not getting the whole story. This sounds like a consensual encounter that got out of control.
The boy may be showing relief because he knows he did something wrong.
Even Limbaugh spent a few minutes on the "chickification" of the U.S. on yesterday's show. In 21 years, it's the first time I have heard him truly go into such a topic.
And Pelosi....well, never mind. What needs to be said about her that everyone doesn't already know?
Yes, Fen, because blame has to always be redirected to the male, no matter how many contortions or imagined scenarios are required.
Women are VICTIMS, not perps.
But Fen, my feelings are near yours. If it indeed started out as consensual, alcohol fueled let's say, and she changed her mind, that's it. Get off, get up, get out. Everyone screwed up. Consider the fact four (or five) dolts, thinking with the little head, took advantage of someone who gets real stupid when she gets drunk. One female is willing to pull a train with four or five guys in a dorm room? What's up with that? How does someone, anyone, even end up in such a situation?
I agree Br549, who knows what was going on? The people involved didn't even know what was going on, and neither apparently the prosecutor or defense attorneys. Alcohol and sex sometimes are not a good combination.
Now, I'd really like to see how a secretly made videotape in a dark room by one of the 4 men having sex with one young woman would have helped their case. Most likely it would have damaged it by confirming the sex/rape happened. How do you differentiate between consensual sex and rape? More often than not you can't. The woman could use that video to sue the pants off of every man in the room and get additional damages from the guy who illegally made the video. Win win for her.
As per Fen, there is more to this story than appears. What kind of culture are we in where women and men readily engage in 5-on-1 sex (filmed, no less), and simultaneously allegations of rape are tossed about as easily as one orders a pizza?
We have an entire generation of young adults who behave like barbarians but then want to pretend to support civilized society. It's gigolos and whores wearing Amish clothes.
"Now, I'd really like to see how a secretly made videotape in a dark room by one of the 4 men having sex with one young woman would have helped their case."
How about this:
"Prosecutors say she cracked and confessed when the lawyer for two of the four men falsely accused provided a cellphone video that showed consensual sex, and no ropes or screams, as she had initially reporter[sic]."
http://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts/hofstra.rape.case.2.1189029.html
Not only can it happen, it in fact did happen. Maybe some of the people here should stop talking in absolutes until they at least know a few facts about the case.
MJ sez: "Prosecutors say she cracked and confessed when the lawyer for two of the four men falsely accused provided a cellphone video that showed consensual sex, and no ropes or screams, as she had initially reporter[sic]."
---------------
LOL
I've never seen anyone so spectacularly wrong about something as ... Cham.
(and "Dr." Alistair).
They are just blinded by their agendas.
By the way, to make this crystal clear:
Evidence illegally obtained by a POLICE OFFICER or other agent of the state is not admissible in court in general. That's true. There are exclusionary motions and hearings every day on that.
But Cham and the other Internet lawyers here are confusing that with the case of a regular person (not an agent of the state) taping something (whether it violates some local law or not). The second case is completely separate from the first.
i actually made no comment regarding the case, as far as i recollect. i merely defended a comment made by cham that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissable in court.
in this case no court saw a video.
i further commented that secretly videotaping a sex act isn`t generally for the purposes of obtaining evidence.....
...as i think was the case in this instance.
most likely a few lads taking advantage of a woman taking herself too far.
now, in directly commenting on the actions of the girl; she should be bull-whipped on the commons.
agenda?
This comment has been removed by the author.
You wait, she's going to sue them for the illegal imagery. You can't take photos or videos of people in a place where they have the expectation of privacy and have not consented to being photographed.
It's just bizarre to me that in a case where a woman did something wrong (false allegation), there are still plenty of people who want to shift the blame in some way to the man. There's always a tilt towards making the woman more of a victim than she was, and making the men more culpable than they were.
Why?
This comment has been removed by the author.
We have a criminal complaint of that very nature happening today.
GawainsGhost just described my life to a "tee" except he got the costs wrong by a factor of 5 or so.
One of her claims was that I'd broken into her house and threatened her with a shotgun. Full-on felony arrest on my job. Problem: I was provably 1500 miles away at the time. Damn good thing or I'd be writing this from the prison library...
Round 2: I threatened her with a HAND-gun at one of the "weekend child-exchanges." Problem: I'd been surreptitiously videotaping every interaction. Hizzoner threatened me with FELONY charges for violating state law - which required notification of all parties for video or audio-taping. HE REFUSED TO ADMIT MY TAPE INTO EVIDENCE (illegally obtained) then proceeded to smash it with his gavel and warn me that NEXT Time I'd be up on charges.
Thankfully he also dismissed the current charges for lack of evidence.
I proved - literally - over 300 counts of perjury including the 4 (total) falsely-sworn police reports (which also included claims I molested our kids), nothing was ever done to her.
We need a law that says "knowingly making false accusation of ANY crime shall carry the mandatory incarceration penalty of the crime alleged." THIS would restore some justice to our current INjustice-system.
DD
BTW - for those who might care - I was FINALLY awarded sole legal custody of our daughters ~12 years ago. Though she got nearly 2x the amount of "visitation" I'd been awarded originally - when I'd done nothing whatsoever wrong - and has used it to undercut my authority and relationship with our daughters at every turn, they have THRIVED.
They love their Mom - warts and all - as it should be, but also recognize ON THEIR OWN that she has ... issues. Eldest is a freshman at a top University, youngest is a sophomore in HS who has never earned a grade of less than "A" in any class. Her life continues to be a total wreck.
Ergo, I am living proof that with IMPECCABLE documentation, lots of money (I still haven't paid off all the loans) a willingness to fight to the death and a whole lot of luck, a guy has at least a 1% chance of beating even the sickest false accuser.
Cham said...
You wait, she's going to sue them for the illegal imagery. You can't take photos or videos of people in a place where they have the expectation of privacy and have not consented to being photographed.
1. How do you think Cham knows Ndoye didn't consent? More MagicCham?
2. It's funny that nowhere does Cham say you can't make false accusations which would put people behind bars. Isn't putting people in jail for a significant portion of their lives worse than taking an unauthorized sex video?
3. No prosecutor is going to push these charges. First because public policy case law generally doesn't allow one to use the law to hide your illegal acts. Second because the public outrage virtually guarantees the prosecutor will face extreme opposition without allies.
4. I'll bet any amount of money neither the victims in this case nor the ACORN exposers are ever convicted of anything. ACORN is just continuing it's standard legal intimidation tactic. But intimidation tactics don't work on events this high profile.
Cham said...
You wait, she's going to sue them for the illegal imagery. You can't take photos or videos of people in a place where they have the expectation of privacy and have not consented to being photographed.
I really don't think a girl doing 5 guys in a public bathroom has an expectation of privacy
Privacy is expected in a public bathroom. You can't set up a video or still camera in a bathroom without the consent of the people who use the bathroom.
Dedicated Dad, I am happy you ended up with the kids. Went through a similar situation with similar results. Accusations made, never proved. All she had to do was say them and fill out some paper work at the police station - while I was out of town working as usual in those days - and the cops were at my door the following Saturday morning. That started a whole long list of goings on that are not quite totally sewn up 13 years later. But I got the kids out.
However, considering the thread we are in, the Hofstra goings on are still fuzzy to my pea brain.
I don't know her so I don't want to say anything bad about her," Felipe said. "I grew up in an all-women household. I have sisters. All my women are aunts. I respect women. I would never disrespect women
But you'll gangbang women. And videotape it. Respect for women.
This carries over to the workplace. I once was harassed by a twenty-something at work. My strategy was to avoid her, to not even say hello to her in the hall. Finally, when she made a crazy allegation in an email that was forwarded by her female director to my boss, I privately emailed her to say I wanted to get along with her but these accusations made that difficult.
She accused me of harassment. Although my email was innocuous, anything a woman declares is harassment is taken as proof by management. She chased it with an accusation that I had been stalking her. To my amazement, my boss wrote an apology for me.
That experience taught me to be very cautious around women at work. I wait a month or two before I relax with a woman coworker to make sure they're not a threat to my livelihood. Even then, if she so much as jokes about making a harassment complaint against me, I retreat to a strictly formal and coldly polite relationship.
The law of the office is apparently that a woman employee can do anything, tell a whopper to justify it, and get off scot free. Stalking is a good generic charge to use against any guy. It works. Even a false charge tarnishes you without any risk to her.
My advice to men who encounter a belligerent woman at work is to document every hostile encounter and email it to your boss and HR, without necessarily taking action. It probably won't help, but at least you'll have some defense. HR will recognize it has a potential legal problem if they take summary action against you should the situation escalate to a real problem. When you deal with HR, the deck is stacked against you if you're a white male. You are the wrong-doer by defintion and default.
If you must take action, do it sooner rather than later. The longer you wait, the more plausible any crazy lies told about you. If a crazed coworker goes berserk on you within your first couple encounters, then charges that you've been stalking her sound crazy. If you've been working with her a year, then a stalking charge sounds more plausible.
Take her out on her first attack. Don't feel sorry about getting her fired. That's what she wants to do to you. Such aggressors in the workplace want their victims to assume all the risk of their attacks, especially the failed ones. You are not doing the world any favors by removing the negative consequences of bad behavior by showing mercy on your workplace predators. Do them in.
If bad behavior merits it, skip management and go to the police. If a co-worker acts belligerently or strikes you, call the police and have them come right to the office to take the complaint. Take it as far as the law allows. Be sure to get the incident documented. Get a copy of that document and its reference number. Hopefully, a visit from the police will make you too dangerous as a victim for further attacks.
Remember that management will do whatever is easiest, not whatever is fairest. The first and best story wins with them. Management usually caves in to the loudest complainer. Use all this to your advantage if necessary by striking back first.
Cham said...
"Privacy is expected in a public bathroom. You can't set up a video or still camera in a bathroom without the consent of the people who use the bathroom."
A woman having sex with 5 guys in a public MENS room has no right to expect any privacy, except in fantasy land, and since she gave consent to the sex, I'll assume the video probably doesn't bother her too much, either.
Cham -
"You wait, she's going to sue them for the illegal imagery. You can't take photos or videos of people in a place where they have the expectation of privacy and have not consented to being photographed."
Cham, you're fishing now, quit. She was wrong, they all were sleazes. She won't because the video would then be posted on the web and she knows it.
Uh, referring to ACORN for any legal question is not a good idea.
Olig, the damage is done already. The woman has nothing to lose by suing. Same with ACORN, those employees have nothing to lose by filing a criminal complaint for illegal videotaping, the video tape is already out there. This lady may not think of herself as a sleaze, she may be thinking dollars.
If the sex video/pictures were obtained illegally then it would be illegal to post it on the Internet. Then the poster is liable.
This is purely a legal issue.
Men will never get equal treatment under the law. Stop producing. Stop cooperating. Just stop. Disengage and go away.
America is becoming a very anti-male society.
If rape can send a man to jail for 10 or 20 years...
A FALSE accusation of rape should carry jailtime for a woman. YES, jailtime.
What right does she have to ruin the lives of men, based on false charges?
"You wait, she's going to sue them for the illegal imagery."
I doubt it, unless she cares absolutely nothing about her reputation. If she sues, the video gets introduced into evidence, and then it becomes public knowledge. Five minutes after that, it's all over the Internet.
"If the sex video/pictures were obtained illegally then it would be illegal to post it on the Internet. "
We all good and darn well that there are a zillion ways to do that in a way that it's untraceable. Route it through an anonymous proxy in Belarus and no one will ever know. At that point the law is just a piece of paper. I'm not saying it's good, but it's reality.
While in this case I agree that she should be jailed for a nice long time as she only recanted after her story came apart, do we want to punish an accuser who recants out of guilt, thus increasing the chance that future accusers will refrain from recanting out of fear of jail?
Olig, the damage is done already. The woman has nothing to lose by suing. Same with ACORN, those employees have nothing to lose by filing a criminal complaint for illegal videotaping, the video tape is already out there. This lady may not think of herself as a sleaze, she may be thinking dollars.
If the sex video/pictures were obtained illegally then it would be illegal to post it on the Internet. Then the poster is liable.
cham, where i have supported your position of moral indignation regarding invasions of "privacy" there is little recourse anyone has regarding the protection of thier image in public or where there is some expectation of privacy.
the google car took images of myself and a friend hsving coffee in starbucks in waterdown, canada.
do i have recourse?
maybe.
do i have the pockets to fight such a legal fight?
and yeah, the google car took my picture.
and maybe the girl could get a gig riding shotgun with paris hilton.
As for nothing to lose, law suits can go both ways. If she instigates legal action, there will almost surely be a countersuit.
While in this case I agree that she should be jailed for a nice long time as she only recanted after her story came apart, do we want to punish an accuser who recants out of guilt, thus increasing the chance that future accusers will refrain from recanting out of fear of jail?
Of course we do. You don't get to go around taking pot shots at people. And, the law cannot coddle its citizens and protect anyone under any circumstances no matter how flakey they are being or what pressure they are under to rollover on the truth. It's real simple. An injustice has been done. At this point, everyone that perpetuates it or acts to promote such injustices are guilty of their own crime of aiding the guilty. If we keep this kind of bullshit up, there will be little left for honest law abiding citizens to do about it other than take up arms.
Fen sez: "But you'll gangbang women. And videotape it. Respect for women."
---------------
Fen, you think your shaming tactics are going to make men respect women more.
Huh.
I respect women who are worthy of respect. I no longer respect women just because they are women. I am also immune to your shaming garbage - and what are you going to do about it? LOL Not a damn thing except stew in your own self-pity that men will no longer simultaneously treat women as equals (when it benefits women), but also treat women as ladies (when it benefits women).
Bite my crank, basically. Honey.
And quit your shaming crap.
Oh, one more point:
You think women have respect for men, Fen?
I know, that's different.
You can't win. Too many men will stand with women and against men, no matter what. That means you'll have to overcome organized women's groups supported by lots of men. You simply cannot win.
On top of that, women are mendacious and stupid. Most really believe in radical feminism. They will use any dishonest rhetorical tactic available. And most men will buy it. End game.
Disengage and go away. Do not work with women. Do not help women. Do not antagonize women. Do nothing. Leave them alone. They're legally dangerous, and quite useless. There's only downside.
And quit your shaming crap.
No.
And go pound sand.
Then get some therapy. Because you've ridden your strawmen off the rails. You need help.
Fen sez: "Then get some therapy. ... You need help."
----------------
I've already had my first appointment, Fen. The psychologist says that I have repressed memories (that I can't remember of course) of incest when I was a child and that is making me act out. She is going to help me recover them under hypnosis. Or just by telling me at every session that I have these memories, or something.
But thanks for your concern!
Tether, I still think you're a female. Actually, I still think you're mary. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
The most pathetic part of this is she had a boyfriend when she did this. She lied to pretend that she wasn't what she truly is. Most people pretend and deny that women act like this and that they lie. They do. Often. People will make excuses and not point out disgusting behavior by women. They will also generalize any negative behaviors by a man as "all men...". It's sad.
If men want to avoid women like this, then they have no choice but to control themselves and not be sexually active outside of a committed relationship (preferably marriage). -- Mike T
Then obviously you have not heard of Domestic Violence charges being leveled against husbands many times at the instigation of the wife's attorney. It happens, its a common occurrence, and is used as a legal trick to rattle the other side.
The problem is that you can be accused even if you don't hook up. In fact, you can be accused even if you've never even spoken to the woman. And, by "accused", I mean that you will be taken to the police station, probably charged, and possibly even tried. There are NO standards for evidence when a woman makes an accusation of rape.
I've gotten a taste of that myself, as I was informally and quite falsely accused of rape by a girl who I didn't have sex with. My point, however, stands. In general, the only safe way for a man to deal with women is to stay away from the bed room and all that goes with that unless he's in a committed relationship.
The standards of evidence are a joke. However, most false accusations have an actual sexual act to be based on.
Scott --
"... do we want to punish an accuser who recants out of guilt, thus increasing the chance that future accusers will refrain from recanting out of fear of jail?"
That tired canard was worthless the day it was trotted out decades ago.
From the other side, I have to presume you would feel that a man should be let off charges of slander and such for viciously sexually maligning a woman if he recanted later out of guilt?
I mean, it would decrease the chances of future parties confessing, wouldn't it?
There is a huge difference between the expectation of privacy in a Starbucks and a bathroom. The google car can take a picture of someone outside because that is a public place and one has no expectation of privacy. If the google car captures an image of someone in a home through a window google has to eliminate the image.
on the wiki post about the google car, there were issues regarding pictures taken through fences, windows etc, and none were removed as i recollect.
interestingly, some countries banned the car entirely. greece for example.
and it`s extremely hard for the individual person to legally force corporations to do anything...especially one the size and scope of google.
The point being missed in this whole debate is that there is no law when it comes to women behaving badly.
The law is set up to protect women from men. There is no law to protect men from women. So she can do whatever the hell she wants, without consequences or penalties.
That's the real problem right there. Unless or until women are held responsible for the consequences of their decisions and actions, it will only get worse.
Change the culture and change the law. Or the modern American girl will continue to remain what she is, a bad joke.
Men need to get their minds right. If you do not know her, if she is not honest, if you cannot trust her, you don't go into a closed room with her. Period.
She doesn't like it? Tough. She can go home and look in the mirror if she wants to find someone to blame for her problems.
She wants to complain about commitment? Please. She doesn't make a commitment to begin with. She makes a promise with the option of changing her mind. That is what renders the marriage contract null and void from the start.
She wants to be worth 50%? Then the first thing, in fact the only thing, on her mind ought to be proving that she's worth it. To the extent that she is unwilling or unable to do that is the extent to which she is not.
She wants presumptive paternity? Then the first thing, in fact the only thing, on her mind ought to be proving that she's not a slut.
It's all on her. Every bit of it. And thus far she certainly hasn't lived up to expectations.
You can thank feminism for that.
Tantor:
"My advice to men who encounter a belligerent woman at work is to document every hostile encounter and email it to your boss and HR"
The only problem with this is that HR is almost completely staffed with women. They are they embodiment of Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy (q.v.).
"Remember that management will do whatever is easiest, not whatever is fairest. The first and best story wins with them. Management usually caves in to the loudest complainer. "
Unfortunately, this is all too true.
""
Thank God, and intentionally, there are no females where I work. As I have explained before, it is a riot to see what goes on when a female sales person comes into our office though. Especially if she is a looker, as many female sales personnel are. We'll buy anything.
I don't want to say out loud how many years it has been since I have been with a woman, intentionally. Most of you wouldn't believe it. I will admit it doesn't seem possible. It's not that I don't want to be. But it IS because of the very things that are continuously described in this blog, just by different individuals. Let's face it, a woman as well put together as say, Erin Andrews, can definitely make a man do stupid shit. At least once. Many men have their own version of Lowell George's "Dixie Chicken".
This all makes me sooo glad I'm gay.
Brian, let's wait and see what happens with gay marriage down the road, when those divorces start popping up. You could be standing at the bar in the Commodore Hotel, pounding down a brewsky. Of course, to be truthful, there'd be a bit more distance between you and the rest of the guys. Just sayin'.
Exactly what expectation of privacy is being violated by a secret video tape? It is only being violated by a non-secret video tape. What about the memory of the act by the guy? Is that a violation of the expectation of privacy? It is only a breach of privacy, by definition, if the guy shares the information with another person. In this case, the way the privacy is breached is by the guy sharing it with the judge and the court. But, that is no different than sharing details of the sex act verbally in testimony.
The woman is consenting to the strictly private recording simply by having sex, in the first place. It is, in principle, exactly the same as the memories of the man she is having sex with so long as it is not put on the internet or shared with other people. And then, she is consenting with it being shared with the court by filing rape charges. Of course, that is just the logic of it -- who knows what a court will actually do?
I suppose it would be handled the same as audio tapes. But, even in states where it is strictly illegal to tape someone without their consent, I would still think that what would happen is the tape would be heard as evidence and the guy would at most be charged with the act of making an illegal tape. Say someone is making an illegal tape of a murder. Do you think they have the murderer's consent? If some other guy is being framed for the murder, of course the tape would be admissible to exonerate him even if it was inadmissible to convict the real murderer.
Just to be clear about this, there is a difference between an expectation of privacy and trust in a relationship. If you have an expectation of privacy, you have it whether you have a relationship of trust with the people violating that privacy or not. Sure, "all things being equal", it would be morally wrong to violate the trust in a relationship built on such a thing by video taping sex acts with, say, a girlfriend. But, the moral culpability is based on the violation of expectations based on the ongoing relationship not on the person's innate expectation of privacy that they would have even if you were strangers or even enemies, for that matter.
Guys,
Don't acknowledge Cham and her rantings; she's just a feminazi man hater (redundant?) who doesn't want to be confused with the facts.
MarkyMark
This comment has been removed by the author.
Adrian:
Moral right and wrong pretty much has nothing to do with legal and illegal. We live within the constructs of the law. Helen is concerned because this woman is not being charged by the district attorney, as of yet. Tether suggested videotaping all sexual encounters with all women to prevent false accusations, that is how this discussion got started. If you bring a woman to your home and do not tell her you are videotaping her while the 2 of you have sex then that would be illegal. You could end up in trouble with the law. I haven't discussed whether videotaping someone without their permission inside a residence when they are having sex is immoral or not. How I feel about it doesn't really matter.
I'd hate to see Tether and other posters do hard time due to an illegal activity.
Don't worry Cham, I don't really need legal advice from a spiteful (non-lawyer) troll on a message board who has repeatedly misunderstood and misstated the law (like the admissibility of certain kinds of evidence from a non-police officer).
I really am not sure what your problem is. The boys in this story WOULD HAVE been doing hard time BUT FOR the fact that they took a video with a cell phone.
But not a whole lot out of you about women making false accusations that could ruin a life. You just want to play petty games to irritate people.
So, something like 13 states have laws specifically addressing hidden cameras and require consent of everyone involved. It is generally something like a $2000 fine and up to 2 years in prison for breaking such laws. And there have been several cases of real hidden camera peeping tom type stuff -- like a landlord surreptitiously videoing someone, not even single-party consent, where the guy does no jail time. And even in cases where it is not legal, the footage has often still been admissible to catch shoplifters, for instance. Although, I suppose you can still say it is technically illegal in such states and cases. Speeding is illegal, after all. Video taping yourself having sex is not a 4th amendment issue. Federal wiretapping laws do not address video and allow for single party consent, anyway. In my state, there are apparently no laws about hidden cameras.
http://www.eyespyli.com/laws.htm
You're just wrong.
Adrian,
Two years and two grand is a HELL of a lot better than 25 years of hard time any day of the week! If I were to choose between the two, it would be an easy choice to make-ESPECIALLY if it meant saving my ass...
MarkyMark
Wouldn't much of this videotaping be a moot point if one had a sign on one's property like the stores have ("These premises under video surveillance....")?
Master Doh-San:
That would be a very good idea. I large sign alerting everyone that video surveillance is occurring would be probably be a good idea. A consent form would be even better.
Dude,
A consent form wouldn't mean squat if a woman signed it. She's free to change her mind whenever she wants, and the courts will back her up on this. Just look at how they cast prenups aside...
MarkyMark
Hey, br549, I actually live in one of the few states that allows gay marriage, and i can tell you this- it should REALLY be called "lesbian marriage" cos it's running about 80% lesbians vs. like 20% gay. I actually don't know any gay dudes who aren't "politically gay" who are at all into getting married and those guys annoy the hell out of me. Hopefully, I'm still safe lol, but i do see your point. I've had plenty of pals who, during a nasty breakup had the cops called by the soon-to-be ex and accused of all sorts of vile crap... Not RAPE, but other stuff. Great, now I'm nervous. Doh!
Well, you could have that sign on your bedroom door. And have motion sensors set up in the bedroom that throw on spotlights and fire up a panavision camera whenever the room is entered. And you could live near a notary who is on retainer and available 24 / 7 so that when you brought a prospect home, you and she could sign a contract in front of the notary, and then head back to the bedroom for some spontaneous reckless abandon. A "pre-sextual" agreement. But I'll bet a man would still lose in court.
Getting loaded in a bar and picking up women rarely works out. The drunker you get, the better they look. Old but true. And rarely does a man, or a woman, go to bed with a butt ugly one night lover. But both have woken up with one, if not a few.
In the current climate, I don't think anyone is safe, Brian. Even in gay or lesbian marriage, wouldn't one have to be considered the larger bread winner? That would automatically equate to deeper pocket. Deeper pocket pays. I would think the courts would assign deeper pockets the "male" identity. Like it or not. I mean, somebody has to pay. That's how it goes.
Oh, yeah. And after the trist, both participants are given a copy of the recorded tape, complete with sound, and a copy of the notarized written agreement. Complete with neutral witnesses to the event, of course.
I would make sure the consent form includes a sentence or 2 that would allow the video to be shared with law enforcement.
br549- I guess i should be glad that the worst that's happened to me is being beaten up by ex boyfriends a few times- at least bruises fade and nobody tried to put me in jail. I to this day can't understand why men who claimed to love me then turned around and got violent with me when it ended. And the concept of trying to forever ruin someone's life by putting them in prison just makes me sick to think about it. I think maybe the justice system needs some adjustment.
Brian:
I to this day can't understand why men who claimed to love me then turned around and got violent with me when it ended.
We don't often invest ourselves emotionally. When 2 people are in a committed relationship a bond is created, people let down their guard and get comfortable. Sometimes one may wrongfully assume they can be assured that their partner will be committed to them no matter what happens, the words they say or the actions they take.
When a relationship ends the emotional bond is often broken. The partner that may have assumed they were guaranteed unconditional love from the other will become devastated, and potentially very angry. Hence, the violence and fury.
Damn, Brian. Read your own post, and think this stuff through. Why are you attracted to them, and why are they attracted to you?
I've asked myself that same question before. I don't know what it is about 300 pound female Sumo wrestlers that are meaner than a snake that draws me to them. But the bigger they are, the harder they hit.
Geez. The first part I was serious about. The second part was a joke, OK?
br549 said...
Tether, I still think you're a female. Actually, I still think you're mary. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
FUCK OFF with your false allegations, br. It's no joke making false accusations. Don't you have a date with a slut in a toilet, btw?
ps. I'm not joking asshole.
If you don't know who's commenting, then don't drag others into it. When you see my name with the M capped, and a link to my blog, then that's me posting here. Otherwise FUCK OFF.
Got it? Good. Stop accusing others if you have no idea who's posting what.
Thank God, and intentionally, there are no females where I work.
Btw, it's ok to be gay, luv.
Maybe a good tube steak up your heinie can take away a bit of your frustration toward women -- all women, even those you don't know and like to falsely accuse.
Just take a deep breath, and push out like you're taking a shit when he nails you. Plus, find something with the men to bond on, other than your hatred of women.
Good luck honey, and remember: lots and lots of lube until you're fully stretched and ready to receive your man. They really can give ya something a woman can't -- not that there's anything wrong with that. ;-)
Getting loaded in a bar and picking up women rarely works out. The drunker you get, the better they look.
I think you're hunting in the wrong bars dear. If you have to get drunk to bang a lady...
I don't want to say out loud how many years it has been since I have been with a woman, intentionally. Most of you wouldn't believe it. I will admit it doesn't seem possible.
Come out, come out, wherever you are !
Heh.
I don't know what it is about 300 pound female Sumo wrestlers that are meaner than a snake that draws me to them. But the bigger they are, the harder they hit.
Though I recommend if you do decide to pursue the fellas, you start with somebody your own size. A big guy can hurt you a lot harder than a big lady.
(And no, before you ask, I'm not interested in helping you our with your "little problem" no matter how much you might need a good ass hurtin'...)
And it's clear from your comments here, you're pretty much beggin' the boys for it.
mary! Missed ya. Mean it!
Men acused of rape who are not the sort of men who are easily acused of rape should have little trouble staying out of trouble.
First rule for staying out of trouble: Don't abuse women as a normal part of your behavior. This will establish a record and/or reputation for not behaving like NFL hero Christian Peter.
Second rule: There are women who really do have sex with a room full of drunken frat boys. Don't go near the women who do that.
Third and most important rule: If you're acused of rape, don't hide behind a lawyer like the Duke lacrosse players did. State that you don't abuse women (not "I didn't do it) and anyone who does belongs in a cell. If you've followed the First Rule you'll be able to invite the media to investigate the story and come to their own conclusions.
God of Bacon,
Your third and most important rule is highly debatable and situation-dependent.
I won't say you're naive about the legal system (although I might think it), but there have been numerous, numerous cases in which naive trust in the police and the "system" has been detrimental to the person involved.
Really.
Secondly, as far as I know, the Duke players DID work with the police. They did turn over everything requested, and they DID consent to searches.
I think the assertion that they didn't was propaganda from the prosecutor's office and the police.
And that DID NOT help the players.
I never claimed that they did not work with the police. I think that they handled the media, from which public opinion and condemnation is formed, about as poorly as they could. Two of them wouldn't even talk to the media and the one who did sobbed, "You've all been told a pack of lies!!" If you're not the kind of male who is easy to accuse of rape because of your past behavior then you have a lot going for you.
Treat women as equals and stay away from frat parties where women are being degraded helps a lot too. And when the media approaches you, say that the kind of men who abuse women should have the key thrown away and that your past behavior speaks for itself. This will at least bring them over to your side more than hiding behind mommy and daddy's high priced lawyer will.
According to Newsday this morning, Ndoye is "likely to face charges":
http://www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/official-charges-likely-for-hofstra-false-rape-accuser-1.1464479
"Two of them wouldn't even talk to the media ..."
----
That's probably a really smart move if you've been accused of a high profile crime.
If it comes down to a trial, every word you say will be pored over and brought out in its worst possible context.
I happen to think it's also a good idea anyway. Everyone today is a reality TV star with no shame and with a huge desire to talk about every intimate detail of his or her life.
Sorry, God of Bacon, but your "advice" is mostly just silly and could be downright harmful.
Your advice to stay away from scuzzy women is OK, I guess (kind of blaming the victim, though), but then your remarks about "parties where women are degraded" reveals your agenda.
If you want to help men, then quit writing. Some poor sap may believe you about talking to the media or something.
Make a false accusation, it's caled perjury and false reporting. Go to Jail.
It should be a felony, with at least a possible ten year sentence. Anything less is just fucking around; and anyone who defends this has no morals.
I had previously thought that people who recorded their sexual experiences were at a minimum kinda strange.
The fact that the only reason that five young men are not headed for twenty plus years in prison apiece is this recording is causing me to rethink that view.
Pete,
It's only called perjury if you lie under oath in court. Otherwise, it's filing a false report.
GOB,
Treat women as equals and stay away from frat parties where women are being degraded helps a lot too.
As soon as a lot more women start treating men in this country as equals, that will be returned. And sorry, but if they ARE equals, then they have every chance to walk away from "being degraded". If they can't make that choice for themselves, then they aren't even close to being an adult, and 'equal'.
E. Steven Berkimer
www.falserapesociety.blogspot.com
"It's only called perjury if you lie under oath in court. Otherwise, it's filing a false report. "
Not necessarily so. On many such gov't forms, you'll find the words "under penalty of perjury".
"As soon as a lot more women start treating men in this country as equals, that will be returned."
Absolutely. The way to be respected is to be respectable.
Master Doh-San,
Correct, on many forms it does.
But simply walking in to a police station and saying "someone raped me, that's the guy", won't get perjury charges, even if it's later proven to be false.
I can state this with some certainty, based on the work we do over at our site. It's disgusting what false accusers are allowed to get away with.
E. Steven Berkimer
www.falserapesociety.blogspot.com
Dedicated_Dad: "BTW - for those who might care..."
We care.
Jeff Y.: "You can't win. Too many men will stand with women and against men, no matter what. That means you'll have to overcome organized women's groups supported by lots of men. You simply cannot win."
I think you're forgetting that balancing out those men are the women who are with us on this.
Post a Comment
<< Home