Rape

Duke Lacrosse. Jackie. Mattress Girl. The Hunting Ground. We Won't Get Fooled Again?

High-profile rape accusations keep collapsing. Here's why.

|

HG
Youtube

Over at The Washington Post, former Reason writer Radley Balko wonders why so many high-profile campus rape stories unravel when scrutinized. He specifically mentions the Duke lacrosse case, Rolling Stone's Jackie, Emma Sulkowicz, and Willingham/Winston, one of the most important alleged rapes in The Hunting Ground documentary. In two of these cases, the purported victims are proven liars, and in the other two, the victims look increasingly untrustworthy in light of new information.

The stories do not represent some random sampling of high-profile rape accusations; it is indeed the case that many of flashiest, headline-grabbing rape stories are later shown to be fraudulent.

This does not mean that all, or half, or a quarter, or even 10 percent of reported rapes are false. In fact, no one knows how many reported rapes are false, and educated guesses range from 1 percent to 40 percent. But if one only considers rape reports that become headline news, and are treated as representative of an epidemic of campus sexual assault, the rate of falsehood certainly seems higher.

So why is that the case? Balko has some worthwhile thoughts:

One possibility is that the nascent anti-campus rape movement isn't as seasoned as the activist groups to whom we've become accustomed. We're used to groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (or if you're familiar with it, the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm) who are incredibly meticulous about vetting their poster cases. This is an unfortunate reality of successful activism: You must be very careful when choosing your victims. But there's a big difference between always picking good cases and this uncanny record of picking bad ones. So this explanation isn't quite satisfying.

A second explanation could just be that the cases that fell apart are the ones we remember — or, we remember them because they fell apart. There may be some truth to this. Exoneration stories certainly capture the public's attention. But the Duke lacrosse case and the Rolling Stone story were huge national news well before skeptics began poking holes in the accusers' stories. In fact, the earliest skeptics in these cases faced quite a bit of scorn and derision. In the case of Sulkowicz, the consensus is still probably in her favor, although the story looks much different now than when it was first reported. In the "Hunting Ground" story, Yoffe just posted her investigation today, so this explanation clearly doesn't apply.

A third possibility… there's a strong desire to find the "emblematic" case, one that checks off all the right boxes — a sympathetic victim, a privileged attacker, an indifferent administration, and so on. Real life doesn't usually produce such clean-cut cases. So there may be an urge to bend stories to make them more sympathetic, more universal and more likely to generate outrage. Probably more to the point, this desire to seek out the perfect poster case may also make activists and their sympathizers in the press more credulous and less willing to ask questions when a story that appears to fit the bill does come along, as Jackie's story did. For activists and sympathetic journalists alike, there's a strong incentive to want to see a promising story (i.e. "promising" in terms of its potential to generate change) in the most favorable light, and with that, a proclivity to overlook the red flags.

Another possibility merges these two points: The alleged victims most eager to generate publicity for their stories may be the those most likely to say what activists or journalists in search of a good story want to hear. This means the stories most likely to be heard are those most in need of skepticism — and those least likely to get it. That's a conflation of incentives that's almost guaranteed to produce bad results.

Finally, it may be that activists deliberately seek out and champion the ambiguous cases to demonstrate their commitment to the cause. This is pretty common among ideologues.

I think all these things are factors in the above cases, to varying degrees.

Duke lacrosse and Rolling Stone stand out as cases where a deeply disturbed person invented a story and found advocates to tell it: Crystal Mangum had her unscrupulous prosecutor, and Jackie had her gullible magazine journalist. The advocates, Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong and Rolling Stone writer Sabrina Rubin Erdely, were beholden to strong ideological and institutional incentives that pushed them to embrace the fabulists. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, it did occur to Erdely that she should press Jackie for more details, but when none came, she surrendered.

The mattress girl and Hunting Ground cases are different. Unlike Mangum or Jackie, there's no evidence that alleged victims Emma Sulkowicz and Kamilah Willingham were deranged or unreliable people, apart from their questionable rape accusations. Whereas Jackie and Mangum both believed—or claimed to believe—that they had been raped immediately after the incidents, Sulkowicz and Willingham needed time to come to terms with what had happened to them and decide that it was criminal.

To be clear, these two cases are not exactly alike. While recent events have given us less reason to trust Sulkowicz, I would still say that her situation is ambiguous (not in the legal sense—Paul Nungesser was cleared), because nothing has definitively discredited her claims. Willingham's accusation, on the other hand, is hard to believe at all, given this report by Slate's Emily Yoffe.

In any case, my point is that both Sulkowicz and Willingham gradually came to see themselves as victims, then survivors, then crusaders. And it seems to me that George Will's heavily criticized point about victimhood conferring privilege might have something to do with that, given the national attention being paid to the issue of sexual assault on campuses, the enormous pressure colleges face to accommodate alleged victims, and the frequently absurd legal regime that actively encourages people to consider that they are victims. Sexual assault survivors get to meet with U.S. senators. There are jobs waiting for them at the White House. There are reporters waiting to uncritically report their stories and hail their antics as courageous displays of inner strength. These are not necessarily bad things: survivors of sexual assault should be accommodated by their universities. Reporters should take their accusations seriously. Policymakers should consider whether there is anything they can do (there is!). But some students who endured uncomfortable sexual encounters that fell short of rape might feel the urge to reinterpret their experiences in a different light—one that rewards them with the (deserved) privileges of victimhood.

As uncomfortable as that contention may be for everyone (me included) who wants to treat victims of rape with the respect and seriousness they deserve, it seems very likely to me that this is exactly what happened with Willingham. Her encounter with Brandon Winston unfolded under the willful influence of alcohol and cocaine, drugs that lower inhibition and allow people to do things they wouldn't otherwise consider. But in the sober light of day, whatever happened between Willingham, Winston, and Willingham's friend no longer seemed like such a great idea. Over time, this regretted experience became something else—and Willingham became an activist, a spokesperson, and eventually, the subject of a major documentary.

It's understandable, but unfortunate from an advocacy standpoint, that "always believe the victims" has become the mantra of anti-rape crusaders. If activists actually want to persuade universities and the criminal justice system to mitigate campus rape, they need to consider their biases and do a better job vetting the people they put on a pedestal. The lesson of Aesop's fable, "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," is not that the threat of wolves is imagined, but rather that the behavior of the boy gives everyone the false and dangerous impression that there are no wolves. 

NEXT: Deeply Confused Newsweek Story Compares Republicans to Timothy McVeigh

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. One possibility is that the nascent anti-campus rape movement isn’t as seasoned as the activist groups to whom we’ve become accustomed.

    Or maybe the rape deniers are all seasoned pros as men have been doing it for millennia. #[insert sjw bumper sticker slogan here]

    1. My wife and I rape each other all the time.

      1. Benitez officially announced as Madrid manager.

        1. Even as a Chelsea fan I’ve always respected The Spanish Waiter. I just think Madrid was foolish to part ways with Carlo (just as we were several years ago right after he won the double).

          1. Ancelotti just said he is taking a break and is not interested in the Milan job.

            1. Gotta get that back fixed…and smoke. A LOT.

            2. Milan is a mess at the moment. He sees that.

          2. On Blatter: Coca-Cola (WC sponsor) just had a press release declaring Blatter’s resignation to be a “positive step.” Hmm, wonder if they, and other sponsors, put some pressure on.

            1. Bluntly, I don’t think the sponsors care.

              2 million to FIFA + 1 million in bribes is the same outlay as 3 million to FIFA and 0 bribes.

              If I were a sponsor, I’d want to make the system opaque… because I’d fear that a closely scrutinized honest system would start with higher prices, and when the corruption seeped in, what had been the 3 million aboveboard which had the 2 million in aboveboard money + 1 million in bribes, will become the springboard to 3 million above board + 1 million in bribes.

              1. Really? FCPA investigations need to be cooked into those numbers. Discovery alone could cost hundreds of thousands.

            2. Possibly… if it were bringing negative publicity upon Coke, they would.

          3. Carlo used English he learned on the job to get into Oxford, but was drowned in the Isis by an anti tobacco mob after trying to found the Smokers Rats movement

        2. Liverpool supporter here. Still love Rafa. I think he’ll do well in Madrid, assuming he actually gets the chance to do so.

          1. You for or against Rodgers staying?

            1. You didn’t ask me, but… I probably lean towards him staying. I’d say he’s hit par in his tenure. First year was a mess of FSG still getting the roster in order (Joe Cole actually got minutes that season); second season was wonderful, save for the ending; third season was mediocre at best. They’ve been fifth in wages over his tenure, which is where his average position more or less is. I wouldn’t begrudge you if you said he’s been a bit below average, given his attempts in Europe have been less-than-stellar.

              Even so, getting a manager right is hard. Klopp seems to be a popular shout, but he just had a rather disastrous season with a team that’s second in wages in the Bundesliga. That leaves who else… Emery, maybe? I wouldn’t begrudge FSG if they went with either of those guys, but I think Rodgers deserves at least the first half of next year to see if he can get it right.

              1. Pretty much this. I’m fine with Rodgers getting another season. A lot is going to depend on this offseason though. Ings and Milner are apparently in, which is a good start (talented, and no/low fees), but we need more.

                Plus Sterling needs to leave the country. I don’t care where.

          2. His stay in Serie A was…I’m not sure what to make of it.

            I think he shoulda gotten more out of Napoli. This is a side that should have been in the Europa final but in fighting and his odd hockey style of rotating players didn’t seem to win fans in the club.

            I have to look back on his tenure.

    2. Seriously, it’s like Robby has never been to a meeting of the patriarchy.

      We have mahogany chairs, marble floors, and many leather bound books. It’s pretty solid. The mandatory buggery is a bit weird, but apparently it’s a hold over from when the headquarters was in England.

      1. Speak for yourself, Goldie. Some of us find that to be one of the better parts.

  2. Man, that’s a lot of thinking to described a bunch of really bad assholes.

    May I invoke Occam’s Razor here?

    Can it be everyone involved in these stories are just disingenuous lying sacks of shits who happened to either be sociopaths or narcissists who could care less about the lives they destroy?

    1. Ding ding! We have a winner.

    2. Outright lies are constant from the left and always have been. The reason there are so many lies now about sexual assault is because sexual assault is the new left-wing obsession so all the same liars who would have been lying about racism 10 years ago lie about rape today.

      Of course, they still find time to tell obvious lies about racism too.

      1. Well, that, and it has now gone mainstream. I don’t doubt that most college leftists truly believe there is a rape epidemic on campus.

        1. As the heinous abuse and overuse of charges of racist, homophobe, and privileged during the last 6 1/2 years of the Obama administration have lost their power to cow and silence, the left had to invent a new buzzword to silence the opposition with.

          Word to the wise: The only “B” word we should use when talking about women is “Beautiful”, because Bitchez love to be called Beautiful!

        2. But there certainly is a rape epidemic going on inside Bernie Sanders mind.

    3. Isn’t Occam’s Razor supposed to be the simplest answer? That’s awfully wordy.

      1. It’s the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions.

        1. Yes.

          It has nothing to do with the number of words.

          /stares at Hetero while licking ice cream.

      2. Bitches be bitches

        1. Word to the wise: The only “B” word we should use when talking about women is “Beautiful”, because Bitchez love to be called Beautiful!

        2. That’s better.

      3. “Isn’t Occam’s Razor supposed to be the simplest answer? That’s awfully wordy.”

        Occam’s razor says that among competing hypothesis that both equally satisfy the problem, the one with fewer assumptions is most often correct.

    4. “May I invoke Occam’s Razor here?”

      That’s not a bad start but it’s still missing something. A fake rape story is more newsworthy than a real rape. I would never have heard of the mattress person, or the Rolling Stone article if not for Bobby’s reporting on these items. He seems to return constantly to fake rape stories, several times a week at least, while I’ve yet to see him cover one legitimate rape story. Though he takes pains to ensure us that real rape does exist, he (or his editor) doesn’t see .fit to report it,

      1. OH…. MY…. GOD!!!!!!!

        Dude! You really need to cut back on how much air duster canisters you huff. Your neurons will thank you, believe me!

      2. “I would never have heard of the mattress person, or the Rolling Stone article if not for Bobby’s reporting on these items.”

        Those were both national news stories with scores of additional articles written about each.

        “while I’ve yet to see him cover one legitimate rape story. ”

        Do you have an example of a recent story that was covered to the same extent? A story that was legitimately controversial?

        If not, then you don’t really have much of a point.

        1. “Those were both national news stories with scores of additional articles written about each.”

          That may be so, but it was thanks to Bobby’s reporting here that I heard of them.

          “Do you have an example of a recent story that was covered to the same extent?”

          No I don’t. My point is that only fake rape stories are covered to that extent. Real rape stories don’t receive anything like the attention lavished on the fake rape stories such as the one Bobby specializes in covering.

        2. JWatts|6.2.15 @ 3:39PM|#
          “If not, then you don’t really have much of a point.”

          This is trueman who makes no bones about simply lying. You’re entirely too generous to claim he merely doesn’t have a point.
          He’s a lying sack of shit who is due all the cred given to, oh, commie kid: None.

          1. Fake rape is covered massively. Bobby here makes his bread and butter out of it. Real rape, he ignores. Occam’s Razor tells us that real rape stories are not as newsworthy. Just like man bites dog stories are going to be covered. Got it yet? If you feel you need to berate me a little more, go ahead.

            1. Rape happens. We all know that.

              Fake rape happens. We all know that.

              Neither of these, in and of themselves are stories.

              But, the Rolling Stone story was more than a fake rape story. It was absurd. On first reading about it I knew it was a lie. What made it a story was that so many people wanted to believe it and were willing to sacrifice innocent people to believe, not because it had any obvious grain of truth in it, because it furthered an agenda. It involved lots of people and lots of lies.

              It is the agenda that was the story, and the lying, and the denial.

              Get it?

              1. “What made it a story was that so many people wanted to believe it”

                This is what you want to believe, but it’s editors who choose whether or not to run with a story. They will say, “Bobby, we need more fake rape stories, and stop coming to me with these real rape stories of yours. I’ve told you time and time again, a rape story is only newsworthy if the woman doesn’t get raped.”

            2. mtrueman|6.2.15 @ 4:39PM|#
              “Fake rape is covered massively.”

              You are an admitted liar. If you said to look east for the sun in the morning, I’d trust you got it right by mistake; YOU ARE AN ADMITTED LIAR.
              Your rep is your value; you have none.

      3. The fake rape stories and the responses to them (e.g. insisting that the accused men automatically be found guilty) are part of a political and cultural phenomenon. Hence they would be a subject for a political blog such as this.

        A legitimate rape story OTOH is simply news, unless it can be legitimately shown to be part of some significant trend (e.g. coverups).

        1. The fake rape stories and the responses to them (e.g. insisting that the accused men automatically be found guilty) are part of a political and cultural phenomenon.

          Wouldn’t that make them “moral panics”?

        2. I understand that Reason is politically motivated to report so intensively on fake rapes. But I think you are wrong in implying that real rape is not a legitimate cultural and political phenomenon, and thus not worthy of our attention.

    5. Mostly they’re just programmers.

    6. I think the supposed victims themselves never meant to have their accusations taken seriously, or at least to the extent that they’d be expected to defend them in court. They wanted to see the men who spited them thrown off campus. Maybe after years of war on women bollocks they expected not to be taken very seriously, and the charade would end at expulsion. Maybe they’re simply naive. Whatever the case, when they discovered the criminal justice system loves nothing better than stringing up rapists on the say of pretty young women. And then they wisely shut the hell up and never recanted, and just let the farce play or.

  3. there’s no evidence that alleged victims Emma Sulkowicz and Kamilah Willingham were deranged or unreliable people

    Let me just stop you right there…

    1. Yeah, Robby’s insistence on continuing to give Sulkowicz the benefit of the doubt contrary to the evidence is a little odd, to say the least. I guess he just doesn’t want to be too offensive to the SJWs for some reason.

      1. Chuck C. Johnson scared off people wanting to be accused of going the “LIAR WHORE LIAR WHORE” route.

    2. Is that Emma ” anal $10 ” SulkingBitch , who carries around a mattress so she practice her chosen profession (cheap whore) most anywhere ?

  4. Fallout 4 to be announced tomorrow.

    1. Really? Did they announce that they are announcing it?

      1. I must have missed the announcement of the announcement of the announcing.

        1. Thank you for this announcement, db.

          1. and this is my receipt for your receipt

          2. British humor on announcements/meeting minutes. The really funny stuff starts at 1:10:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85fx0LrSMsE

            1. Yes, Minster needs to be remade in an updated American version…

              But I’m afraid Hollywood would leftise it.

    2. Tell us more…

  5. So what do you call a reverse nut punch?

    Ball massage? Handy?

    1. Nut caress.

      1. Having your stool pushed in?

  6. “Here’s why.”

    This is literally going to explain why this is a problem.

    1. “all these things are factors in the above cases, to varying degrees.”

      Analysis. OWNED.

  7. The alleged victims most eager to generate publicity for their stories may be the those most likely to say what activists or journalists in search of a good story want to hear. This means the stories most likely to be heard are those most in need of skepticism ? and those least likely to get it. That’s a conflation of incentives that’s almost guaranteed to produce bad results.

    This is what is going on. There is an environment where the more sensational the story, the more it fits the narrative, the more brutal and terrible it is, the more attention it gets. The more praise and attention the “victim” gets.

    There has been a creation of a symbiotic relationship between the pushers of the narrative, and the people who come forward as supposed victims. The pushers get their “perfect” story, so they don’t question it. They don’t investigate. They don’t want to ruin it by proving it false. And to them, that’s more important than integrity. The “victims” get attention, they get praise, they get job possibilities, they get support, they get tons of stuff.

    (cont…)

    1. So what are the incentives here? The incentives are for someone shameless enough to lie enough to create a “perfect” narrative to come forward and bask in the praise of the narrative pushers, who have zero incentive to check the truth of the story. There are no incentives–at least there weren’t before these major embarrassments–to not run these stories up the flagpole. Of course we’re going to get absurd stories like this: because there is a market for it. There are tons of journalists chomping at the bit to get one of these stories. And they pay in fame, praise, and power. So who do you think is going to step up and deliver for them? The worst possible people: pathological liars.

      1. In the Rolling Stone case there were examples where the author was given ACTUAL REALLY TERRIBLE rape stories that had the bonus of being actually true, and she rejected these stories for the piece because they weren’t sensational enough or they didn’t involve Ivy school fraternities.

        She had already written the story and then went out looking for evidence to fill in the blanks.

        1. Like I said, there is a market out there for the “perfect” story. And there are people who are willing to supply that story…even if they have to make it up out of whole cloth.

          This whole situation is like a magnet for pathological liars. People shouldn’t be surprised when everything they get is lies.

          1. Rape is just the hot topic right now. Just like Satanic pedophiles running daycare centers were 2 decades ago.

            What’s the next one? Any ideas? I’m guessing something to do with clowns.

            1. “I’m guessing something to do with clowns.”

              Please no.

            2. I just figured it would be your mom. At Hot Topic. Man she loves those clothes. And I love taking them off of her.

              1. Hot Topic? She only trolls the International Male stores.

                1. Chess King.

                  1. I was amazed to see Chess King survived to 1995. I remember them from back in the 1970s as the source of platform shoes, wide-collared loud polyester shirts, bellbottoms, flourescent faux-fur vests and leisure suits. I went to elementary school with kids who got their clothes from Chess King. It was like a tween-to-teen boy’s pimp-apparel store. Merry Go Round sold the ‘ho-ware.

                    1. In the 80’s iChess King was acid washed denim, and only acid washed denim.

            3. There’s a bubbling scandal in the public school systems. The Atheistical Left (and segments of the dimmer Protestant Right) have been hammering the Catholic Church for decades over its history of covering up abuse by priests. Not that the Church doesn’t deserve to be raked over the coals, mind. But there are indications that a similar pattern of Education bureaucrats, Teachers Unions, and such-like have been covering up much the same kind of behavior in the public schools.

              The Liberal Establishment SERIOUSLY doesn’t want to deal with that, but at some point they are going to have to.

              Don’t know if it’s next, though.

              1. The Liberal Establishment SERIOUSLY doesn’t want to deal with that, but at some point they are going to have to.

                Especially considering, from my reading, that the movement runs precisely counter to the campus rape stories and the whole gamut of rad-feminism.

                Women are frequently (disproportionately?) the perpetrators against boys who aren’t legally able to give consent.

                I think this one will have to wait it’s turn if it ever sees any more light.

                1. I have the impression that the “female teacher fantasy” cases are what is leaking, but not the majority. They are dog bites man stories, too good to surpress. So they get out.

                  As the educational industrial complex rots, we’ll see more of what it’s been hiding.

            4. There’s also a revival of the “white slavery” moral panic going — Google up “human trafficking”.

          2. there is a market out there for the “perfect” story. And there are people who are willing to supply that story

            Supply and demand in a free market at work. If only the government would step in and regulate the journalism industry. /sarc

            1. It seems like they are already doing that. Look at “global warming” aka “climate change”, and some of the other issues like police brutality. I don’t know whether I’m sarcastic or not! What size mattress was that, anyway?

              1. 50 lb twin, according to her Wiki entry

        2. Speaking of which, Erdely seems to have completely dropped off the map. I imagine her lawyers told her to shut her pie hole for the time being.

          1. Well, she really fucking stepped in it. The pain she’s currently in and will endure over this is the only incentive in the entire mess to not try and push these unverified too-good-to-be-true stories.

            1. I bet you the only lesson the people that think the way that Ederly does – that the narrative is the only thing of importance – is that they need to make it harder to fact check the next pile of made up garbage they try to pass off as a real horror story of the abuses of patriarchy.

      2. What were Abigail Williams incentives?

      3. There is already a name for this psychological phenomenon. It is called Munchausen syndrome.

        The twist in this particular variety is that SJW and neo-feminists get reinforcement of their own prejudices and neuroses when a delusional woman concocts a rape story. Both the “victim” and her supporters get the attention that they so desire and the satisfaction of destroying a man.

    2. The pushers get their “perfect” story, so they don’t question it. They don’t investigate.

      They don’t dig into it because that’s what rape deniers do. They don’t want to admit that there’s a reason allegations are challenged other than the want to blame the victim.

  8. Crystal Mangum had her unscrupulous prosecutor, and Jackie had her gullible magazine journalist.

    Of course the man in unscrupulous but the woman is just gullible. Why not just call Erdely a dizzy broad and be done with it?

    1. The prosecutor in the Duke Lacrosse travesty really was the main force behind the persecution, much more than the alleged victim. The lengths he and his team went to in order to build their case are mind boggling.

    2. I think that’s true, though, in this case. Nifong was willfully malicious, whereas Erdely was just a sucker, and negligent.

      1. I agree on Nifong, but Erdely seems to me to be maliciously negligent in not doing the least bit of due diligence and deserves more heat than she seems to be getting.

        1. This was my thinking as well. Nifong wanted to ride that prosecution to an election win. Erdely wanted to push a narrative and did so also on the backs of victims of false accusations. I guess you could say Erdely’s motivation was less for personal gain, but it was still more than gullibility.

          1. To cram it into the legal framework, she wasn’t criminal, she wasn’t negligent, she was reckless.

          2. I’d be surprised if Erdely wasn’t thinking this was her Pulitzer prize story.

      2. Erdely was more than just a sucker… and worse than merely negligent.

        Negligence implies that she failed to exercise adequate due diligence, and had she done so she would have discovered that Jackie’s story was false.

        It looks more like Erdely reasonably ought to have known that the story was embellished at minimum, but more likely than not fabricated. And it appears that she intentionally avoided looking too closely into the details, because she knew that doing would blow up her cover story, and figured that if it ever did blow up she could cover her ass with a ” But Jackie said…”.

        1. Shouldn’t you be laying low?

      3. I think you’re wrong, Robby. Erdely was malicious. She must have been able to see through the ridiculous tale she wrote about. Everyone else with half a brain did the minute they heard about it. She went out to take some people down, true or not, she didn’t care, as it would up her status in the activist journalist movement should she succeed.

        Just a sucker? Nah.

  9. “Survivor” is now a bullet point for your resume in certain niche career fields. That incentive is probably enough for some people to tip the scales from “bad choice hooking up” to “I’m a victim/survivor”.

    1. Don’t you know that the best way to emotionally move on after a traumatic experience is to restructure your identity around it and trumpet it to the whole world?

      /sarc

  10. “While recent events have given us less reason to trust Sulkowicz”

    The term is “doubt”.

    1. Come on, Gilmore!

      Didn’t you ever get anally raped by someone who choked you into submission?

      How do you know you wouldn’t write the following?

      I wanna see
      yoyououoyou”

      and after your rapist sent you a sloppily over the top happy birthday wish, reply with?

      “I love you Paul. Where are you?!?!?!?!”

      1. uhm, studies show stuff.

        like, rape victims also frequently date their rapists in an attempt to reconcile their trauma. and stuff. It was a study. SCIENCE

        1. #IFLS too much?

        2. I’ve known women who have been raped by a guy within our social circle. They continued to treat him politely within the group, but none of them would let themselves be in a room alone with him for 30 seconds after.

          If anyone says ‘rape victims also FREQUENTLY date their rapists….’ and claim science, I would doubt the science and doubt the rationality of the writer.

          No offense. Although…..

          1. Also….’I love you Paul. Where are youyouyou?’

            And, all the rest?

            That isn’t dating someone, that is stalking someone.

      2. she has PTSD and forgot about the assault and rape. or, like the other rape victim of Nungesser’s, remembered it as hugging.

        1. *falsely* remembered!!!

          the non-rape ‘hugging’ false-consciousness is simply the white male capitalist patriarchy at work

        2. She was for the anal rape before she was against it?

  11. because nothing has definitively discredited her claims.

    I’m sorry, what are Sulkowicz’s text and facebook messages to Nungesser, fried chicken?!?

    1. uh, racist

    2. You don’t know what goes through the minds of victims!!!!!!!111!!1111!

    3. Judge Judy dismisses cases all the time when the plaintiff has had relations (sexual or friendship) with the defendant after the alleged [insert small claims incident here]. Basically, if you fucked a guy after he failed to pay you the $1000 he owes you and totaled your Camry, Judge Judy won’t give you jack shit.

  12. The agenda of the left is the same as it ever was; to fundamentally transform our society. They are amoral authoritarians. They want to turn the freest, most successful country the world has ever known into a third world totalitarian shithole which they will rule over with an iron fist. They strive to punish anyone that seeks autonomy, independence, or freedom and chain them. Their sole motivation is hate.

    It has only been recently that I have put it all together just how insidious they are, I suppose because I had difficulty admitting to myself such evil exists on a wide scale. It is evident in the words and actions of their savior, the chocolate Jesus, and evident in the words and actions of all of their various fields of activism. From the feminist harpies to the anti-cop protestors to the race mongers and the hate speech whiners, they all have one goal in mind; demoralization and the enslavement of society.

    1. They choose their cases carefully; those that have the most potential to divide and destabilize. They don’t protest the most egregious cases of police abuse. No, that would bring everyone together. They choose the Michael Browns, the Jena six and the Trayvon Martins. They don’t carry mattresses around because of actual, provable rapes, they invent ludicrous cases reminiscent of equally absurd daycare satanism. The race mongers turn racism on it’s head to engender as much resentment as possible from people who belong to the wrong ethnicity but themselves have nothing to do with racism. They twist the meanings of words and invent new ones until what they say sounds good but is completely incoherent. They deceive and torment, foster resentment and hatred, they rabble rouse.

      As it is they lack only one tool in their toolbox. The tool they have used everywhere and all times when they have been successful at gaining total power, mob violence. Sure, they can stir up a little here and there, but not in the places that really matter. The reason they can’t utilize it is simple; our second amendment remains intact. That is why they hate it so badly and why the biggest liars of all are the gun grabbers. If they ever manage to emasculate the Second, we are done for.

      1. yeah, but that won’t happen so they can fuck right off.

      2. OT have you noticed retail prices creeping up a little lately? I have no hard data, just anecdotal.

        1. Companies all over are raising pay. Although they’re running TV commercials patting themselves on the back, they aren’t doing it to be nice. They’re doing it because they’re were having a hard time finding workers at the wages they had been previously paying. The job market in the US is tightening up. Companies will have to raise prices to cover the new higher wages.

          The next wage-price spiral may have begun.

      3. “Political tags ? such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth ? are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”

        Robert A. Heinlein

      4. I agree with your assessment.

        They want not justice anywhere, at any time, for anyone.

        They want to destabilize the country. And, to do so, they can’t pick anything that we all agree on.

  13. There’s no mystery here. The cases that make the headlines make those headlines because there is something shocking and incredible about them. When some story is incredible, its incredible because some aspect of the story makes it hard to believe (thats pretty much the definition of the word). And that makes it more likely to be false.

  14. High-profile rape accusations keep collapsing. Here’s why.

    ? Because many of these cases rest on iffy evidence
    ? Usually, they are not followed-up properly
    ? Left in the shuffle, many times, is the statements from would-be suspects
    ? Left also is proper police work
    ? Situations arise where politics trump common sense
    ? Hastened conclusions abound
    ? It does defy credulity when accusations are taken at face-value
    ? Too many times the victim has an agenda

  15. Because no one would believe a woman would lie about being raped.

    1. Up to 40% of them do, according to Robby’s educated guess.

      1. Robby was referencing Balko’s cite of this, which in turn references this study

  16. activists deliberately seek out and champion the ambiguous cases

    Like picking Michael Brown over, say, Aiyana Jones or Kathryn Johnston?

  17. Or Tamir Rice?

    1. You always have some asshole that will say Tamir Rice was doing something wrong.

      It’s much harder to argue against an 8-year-old girl watching TV in her own home.

      1. My response would be along the lines of:

        “What was he doing wrong? Are you doing something wrong? Perhaps you were speeding yesterday, or maybe you ran a red light. Maybe you should get executed by a cop next time you get pulled over. Obviously they wouldn’t pull you over if you weren’t doing something wrong.”

      2. Bou Bou Phonesavanh was obviously guilty of something.

      3. Someone at work said Rice was obviously doing something nefarious, and my complete response was, “You realize that we have independent verification that there were less than 30 seconds between the cop stopping his cruiser, and the shots fired that killed him, right? Where was any kind of warning to put the gun down, or any attempt at peacefully resolving the situation?” That kind of shut him up about it.

  18. ” I think the activists on this issue are mistaken when they say that we’re in the midst of a campus rape crisis. The data just don’t support the notion. And the studies that do have some serious flaws. “

    Wow, clear, unqualified statements.

    never seen that before.

  19. They are liars, period. They will lie about anything and everything to get their grubby little paws onto any possible means of control over any and all of us. The narrative, not the truth, is what matters to them because, to them, the narrative is what molds public opinion to their preferred outcomes. So we have these fabricated rape stories – why? Because it buttresses their claims that colleges are overrun with rapists. If colleges are overrun with rapists, then obviously strong measures must be taken to protect this enormous population of at-risk women. Why wouldn’t you go along with that – do you want to aid rapists???? Huh? Obviously your vile misogyny is revealed by your opposition to these common-sense steps to prevent rape and aid survivors! How can we be restrained by such trifles as “due process” where RAPE is concerned??

    The point of it all is to erode such things as due process, so that the kind of leftist offal who run schools (and, of course, that thing we all do together!) consolidate their power over us. Rape is just a particularly effective tool in the arsenal, and these bullshit stories are the way they employ that tool.

    1. Or, to look at it from a different perspective – if all this bullshit was actually about rape, Erdeley could have written a big story on the very real rape of the girl at Vanderbilt. But that just wouldn’t have done, because the rapists were not the rich white guy boogeymen she set out to demonize but a group of football players, several of whom were black and one who was white. Black rapists totally don’t tell the story of intersectionality that she was aiming for, y’know?

  20. Speaking of crusades, apparently this is happening….

    First ever Gun Shaming Day

    The comments so far are fun

    1. Say it ain’t so, Jason Bateman…..

      How is Sharpton’s daughter managing to remain upright while standing on her grieviously injured ankle?

      1. The Mets? What are they famous for?

        1. Sucking. And not being the Yankees.

          1. And by participating in this they bring their suck to a whole new level.

            1. They’re hoping participation in the same event as Meg Wolitzer will increase their fame by association.

              1. Not for nothing, but Meg seemed to miss the message and appeared to be wearing a sack of oranges.

                1. A ‘fleshy bodied mutant of the forbidden zone’, if you will.

          2. Just because the Yankees are currently playing good baseball doesn’t mean they don’t suck.

            Because they do.

      2. How is Sharpton managing to remain upright while looking like a POW who just completed the walk from Bataan. One can only hope he’s fading away…

    2. “libidiot season” made me chuckle.

    3. I appreciate “Orange is the new stupid.”

    4. My Hero 11 minutes ago 0 1
      What about all violence? What about National Gun Saved my life day?

      Memorial day was last week, July the 4th is in a month, Veterans Day will be Nov. 11th, and you are (not) free to perform celebratory gunfire any day of the week.

      Only goofballs wear orange shirts to protest gun violence. It’s like going to atheist church. Chuck Norris is the only actor I know legitimately opposed to gun violence.

      1. “Chuck Norris is the only actor I know legitimately opposed to gun violence.”

        Real men resolve their differences with Rocket Launchers.

        1. I’m actually more partial to grenade launchers.

          1. Well, that’s all fine if you’re a bare-chested heathen, but me, personally, I’m more fashion conscious, and my engagements with offensive rabble hiding in bushes tend to go more like this

            1. “Morpheus is fighting Neo!”

              (everyone scrambles to watch)

    5. I posted in the other thread, but some gun rights proponents are turning this around.

      Iowahawk posted a pic of the Jersey Shore douchebags (Get it? Orange? As in, they’re wearing orange skin? From the tanning?)

      I posted that orange is the color for Bladder Cancer Awareness (the disease that killed my mom), so the gun grabbers can get fucked with their orange bullshit.

      1. I wear orange on St Patrick’s Day (when I remember), how does that fit in?

    6. I bet they wear Orange to commemorate King Billy.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG3apPiTur4

    7. As if there wasn’t enough reasons to hate the Mets.

  21. Part of it is confirmation bias.

    People see what they expect to see. If they expect to see a rapist, that’s what they see.

    The other thing is that sex is funny in that you can later regret having done it with someone even if you consented at the time. And afterwards, it can seem like you didn’t want it to happen the whole time, and we can project the way we feel now into the past–as if we always felt that way.

    Women aren’t alone in dealing with that…cognitive bias either. Lots of guys wake up in the morning and think, “Oh my God, what a huge mistake!” I’m sure different people deal with that in various ways. Some of them become angry and vindictive, I’m sure. And it isn’t just that way with sex either.

    I didn’t always hate butternut squash. I’ve hated it since the first time I tried it, but there was a time before I ever tasted it that I must have consented to trying it. But your ego doesn’t get involved in that. Your frenemies don’t laugh at you, call you names, and talk about you behind your back when you eat squash you hate.

    1. Squash doesn’t go around bragging that you…ate it either.

      1. Analogy…collapsing…

      2. Ken, did you walk around with a dinner plate strapped to your back after you consented to eat the butternut squash that you determined you did not like? And if so did an Ivy League college give you course credit for it?

    2. Of course, guys just think “man, I wish I hadn’t drunkenly fucked that beast of a woman”, they don’t go around claiming she raped them.

      1. It also helps if you give the beast a fake name. Or even better, give her the name of one of your friends. I bet you’d share a good laugh about it afterward.

  22. Two books which are very relevant to this issue:

    Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer
    Andrzej ?obaczewski’s Political Ponerology (A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes)

  23. The solution seems to be that all sex should be a threesome, ensuring that another woman is there as a witness.

    1. Actually, two people could collude and lie. Thirteensomes are the only way to go forward. Any fewer and there just aren’t enough people.

      1. That wouldn’t work. Nobody goes to orgies – too many thank you notes to write afterwards.

    2. This an idea I get behind.

      1. Is Swiss on vacation? I need a gaze over here. Anybody have a gaze?

        1. *squints menacingly*

    3. And this is why NutraSweet should be supreme overlord. Of my heart.

    4. Another woman?

      Why would there be a woman involved in sex in the first place. I think you’re doing it wrong.

      1. Of course they’re doing it wrong. Fucking cishet men.

        1. This coming from the chick who still has her Tiger Beat posters of the New Kids on the Block on her wall. She keeps the Menudo ones in a manila folder in her drawer.

          1. And I will love Donnie forever. What’s your point?

            1. YOU JUST MADE IT.

            2. Looking at recent pictures of Joey makes me feel old. Of course, looking at 90’s pictures of Joey also makes me feel old.

      2. It’s not gay if your balls touch, dude.

        1. No, no, no. Sheesh, Warty. It’s ONLY gay if your balls touch.

          You’ve been doing it wrong all this time.

          1. Or right, these things are so subjective.

            1. *facepalm*

              I’m a cit-het shitlord, and I’m here to get help.

      3. Who cares if three rapists have sex? And why would having two guys and a woman help the college girl? That’s just two rapists backing each other’s story up.

  24. BODYCAMS FOR ALL COLLEGE STUDENTS!

    1. At the very least that would be a boon for the production of first person POV porn.

    2. Vaginacams!

    3. Google contacts.

    1. That’s a pretty smooth scam PEG is running …

    2. Few people realize that the Rwandan massacres might have been avoided if only more Tutsi-Privilege classes had been available

    3. St Paul? Talk about your coal to Newcastle.

    4. Also, “Priviledge” is just like privilege, but *edgier*

      1. The Hamster Coffee Scale

        1 cup – Not Human. Do Not Approach.

        1 cup – Whuzzat? Huh? *slurp*

        2 cups – Very Nearly Human, Minimal Errors of Speech, Spelling and Gross Motor Control Returning

        3 cups – Fully Human

        1. Squirrels ate my less-than signs. Bastards that they are.

        2. Here’s mine

          less than 1 cup – doing just fine

          1 cup – gut rumblings

          2 cups – poop

          3 cups – “it’s coming out of me like lava!”

          1. That would be highly inconvenient. *slurps more coffee, goes back for refill*

  25. A third possibility? there’s a strong desire to find the “emblematic” case, one that checks off all the right boxes ? a sympathetic victim, a privileged attacker, an indifferent administration, and so on. Real life doesn’t usually produce such clean-cut cases. So there may be an urge to bend stories to make them more sympathetic, more universal and more likely to generate outrage.

    I suspect this is probably the biggest factor. They so desperately want a story that not only checks all the boxes but also fits the narrative: that men are evil rapists in waiting, because RAPE KKKULTURE or some such horseshit.

  26. Duke Lacrosse

    That’s my porn name.

    1. Fritz LaMagma, the wildest ride in three states.

  27. why? because there is no punishment for false accusations. as long as that remains the case, this will continue.

    1. And this is why the “preponderance of evidence” standard of proof is bullshit for rape accusations.

    2. ^^^^THIS^^^^

      It’s beyond ludicrous to me that someone can fabricate a rape story then not spend the same amount of time in jail and paying for the defense costs of the person they injustly accused.

  28. it is indeed the case that many of flashiest, headline-grabbing rape stories are later shown to be fraudulent.

    Because if it’s too good to be true…

  29. Can’t rape the willing.

    1. The Beatles predicted mattress girl:

      I never give you my pillow
      I only send you my invitations
      And in the middle of the celebrations
      I break down

      1. ‘I say yes, you say no, you say stop, I say go go go….you say goodbye, I say hello…………..’

  30. In today’s Hillary news (because I know y’all are just dying to know what she’s up to), Mx Hillary allowed men at a women-only event, and set the price for her small talk at $1000 large, minimum.

    1. Two-link limit. Because it doesn’t stop there!

      She told an adoring voter to go to the end of the line, and her infant granddaughter is dressed in Oscar de la Renta.

      It appears the only thing she cannot buy is a clue.

      1. Maybe she can buy one from the Hardly Boys.

        1. When she gets there she knows, if the stores are all closed, with a word she can get what she came for.

      2. Did she charge the women $1000 and the men $780?

      3. Becoming a grandmother has made Hillary Clinton think long and hard about what kind of world she wants to leave behind for future generations

        Where was giving a fuck about that when Chelsea was born.

    2. Hillary allowed men at a women-only event…

      Story of her life.

  31. OT: Elon Musk in for $5B in taxpayer dollars.

    Does Reason have an opinion or are we still collectively wiping the OMG SpaceX! Hyperloop! #IFLS ejaculate off our faces?

    1. I think the general opinion is that Elon Musk is not significantly less of a fascist cunt than Buffett.

      1. I guess I more meant the official Reason staff. I’ll admit to not having read them all, but the majority of Musk or Musk-project related articles I’ve read here seem to be of the literal ‘#IFLS hoo-rah!’ cheerleading variety.

        Seems like a ‘self-made’ private space technology entrepreneur taking billions in tax dollars should be at least half as newsworthy as Catelyn Jenner. Even to a ‘social liberal, fiscal conservative’-style magazine.

        1. The only time I’ve seen them ‘pro-Musk’ is for the Space-X stuff.

          They’ve pretty consistently shat on him over his cars (except for the part were he’s being shafted by the pro-dealer laws – and the commentariat laughs and reminds the writer that he’s just being hoisted by his own petard) and the hyperloop idiocy.

          1. The most recent hyperloop piece struck me as having an equal ‘future friendly’ bias.

            At least, there was no real questioning of the fantastic claims technology or business-wise and a heavy focus on outperforming California’s High-Speed project (which is really a jobs program).

            I can understand being friendly to guests, but the interview struck me as pretty much an open platform for talking up Musk’s project.

    2. We’re not wiping it off, we’re rubbing it in.

    3. Not Another Skippy and I have been beating this drum since ‘weapon’ showed up here from the Tesla PR agency handing out crap about how you can get to Tahoe if the tail-wind is right.
      Someone else here has not been shy about mentioning how Musk is (still?) collecting a bonus on each car for ‘fast recharging’; a battery swap which swap supposedly demo’d once and never seen again.
      For you further edification, the cars are built in the former NUMMI plant in Fremont, CA, which was abandoned by GM/Toyota since they couldn’t build competitive cars with union labor. Yep, Tesla got the plant under a sweetheart deal (Feinstein/Pelosi) and is non-union.

      1. The silver lining is that the government funding has a better chance of turning into something good since the labor is non union.

    4. Well, among the many crony capitalists and rent seekers, I still prefer him to most of the others: he wastes our money on more fun projects than the rest.

  32. Sexual assault survivors get to meet with U.S. senators. There are jobs waiting for them at the White House. There are reporters waiting to uncritically report their stories and hail their antics as courageous displays of inner strength. These are not necessarily bad things

    Is this the same rationale as making a tax-evader the Secretary of the Treasury? Or recruiting ex-junkies as rehab counselors?

    1. The best driving instructors are those who killed at least one person in a car accident.

      1. Like the best doctors are those who’ve killed at least one patient?

  33. Did Kirsten Gillibrand ever address the possibility she’d been duped?

    1. “Duped”? that sounds like Victim Blaming to me.

      plus, she’s totally like way too busy helping promote “SLUT: The Musical” as an awareness-raising project.

    2. Please.

    3. Do you think she even cares?

  34. OT: the Supreme Court has, so far, been surprisingly pro-defendant so far this term. Though, considering how far we’ve wandered from the 4th Amendment, we’re probably suffering from lowered expectations these days.

  35. Where’s our HyR post on McConnell’s salty ham tears?

    1. And now I have a mental image of Naked Mitch with an apple in his mouth.

      Just felt the need to share that image.

    2. Did he actually cry?

      Yummmy.

  36. Most of these high profile cases are tried in the college campus environment and in the media because they have no place in the criminal justice system or any campus disciplinary system that protects the rights of the accused. Some of these cases are so weak that the police decline to investigate beyond taking an initial report, and the allegations are demonstrably false to any impartial observer. When the “victim’s” own version of the incident isn’t enough to convince the police that there is probable cause that a crime has even occurred, activists and the media will take the story and run with it, treating it as a grave injustice. These are the cases that become high profile, and often fall apart.

    The accusers and their enablers are fully aware that their accusations won’t survive legal scrutiny, and seek out the media for publicity and mob justice. It gives them a forum where they can continue the false narrative uninterrupted. Their story will be accepted uncritically, elevated victim status will be conferred upon them, and they will be able to get away with lying for a bigger truth. These are the people that Rolling Stone writes about.

    The only people getting fooled by these cases anymore are the ones who want to be fooled. They are drawn in by the outrage because it fits their world view. Outrage porn is clickbait.

  37. It’s a moral panic that benefits affluent white women. We need to take it as seriously as the McMartin kid toucher trials. Which means we need to brutally debunk every false claim we can. And, by “we” I mean reason and real media types. These bitches are dangerous and are/will ruin lives.

  38. . . . there’s no evidence that alleged victims Emma Sulkowicz and Kamilah Willingham were deranged or unreliable people, apart from their questionable rape accusations. . . Sulkowicz and Willingham needed time to come to terms with what had happened to them and decide that it was criminal.

    OK

    1. There was evidence that Sulkowicz was, at the very least, seriously disturbed – its just no-one bothered to dig into the story before they championed here.

    2. Second part – if the *accuser* needs time to decide if an encounter was rape, then how do people think the encounter looked to the accused?

    2a. If you don’t know you’re being raped right away, then its very likely you aren’t – caveats for being *conscious* at the time.

    1. Absolutely 2a. Barring being unconscious or near unconscious, if you don’t know it’s rape while it’s happening, it’s not rape.

      1. Completely agree. I’m really tired of people saying they realized they were raped years later and then deciding after the fact to be totally traumatized by it – even ythough they weren’t for years before they decided it was rape.

        1. Caveats for people who were sexually abused as children and didn’t know what sex was at the time.

  39. Actually Balko misses the 5th and most likely causes.

    The advocates for ideological reasons are incapable of concieving that a woman might not be telling the truth about rape.

  40. To me its pretty obvious- they are specifically going after cases that are marginal at best – one’s that are hardly provable because that narrative is that not enough is being done to go after campus rapists. The end result is the same – the reason that the cases end up blowing up in the media’s faces is that they are pursuing a narrative instead of the truth. Liberals typically do this – they make up their minds how things are supposed to be before there is actual evidence. Liberals are also typically lazy people – they don’t like to have to do the actual research – they just like to be considered correct because, – well they are superior beings just because they are liberals and CARE SO MUCH more than the rest of us.
    As far as I am concerned, any woman who would carry a mattress around with her as a “art project” to propagate a false rape charge is a rather sick person who needs inpatient psychiatric help.

    1. Right, the narrative says that there are all these terrible rapes happening, but the reality is there aren’t. There’s a lot of drunk sex and ambiguous consent, but that isn’t what fits the narrative. The stories that DO fit the narrative turn out to be fabrications, because the narrative is just bullshit. It’s not what’s really happening.

  41. The problem is that reporters tend to gravitate towards the most sensational stories, which happen to also be the most likely to be fabricated.
    While the ones that are more likely to be true, also tend to be the most ambiguous.

    Really, the problem is that campus rape activists are exagerrating the amount and severeity of rapes on college campuses so they just don’t have that many really unambiguous clear cut rape stories. They get stuck hyping up the outright fabrications and the more ambiguous true stories, because there just aren’t that many unambiguous true stories to find.

  42. Don’t forget about the Erica Kinsman and Jameis Winston case, she basically changed her story 7 times (so far).

  43. There is another possibility. Women are liars. Naturally.

  44. It was amusing watching the author tapdancing around this topic. WHEN can we expect to see at least a healthy skepticism of the motives and claims of advocacy groups like the anti-rape crowd that now seems to infest campus? Seeing how often these rape accusations unravel, a reasonable person might begin to suspect that a very high percentages of rape accusations are little more than attention-seeking gambits by people that deserve psychiatric help, not a legal jihad against the objects of what seems to too often turn out to have been nothing but their fantasies.

  45. One possibility is that the nascent anti-campus rape movement

    Nascent? Maybe partial birth abortions could be justified in this case? Kill it before it harms any more people?

  46. The explanation is simple, consider two rape claims:

    A rape of a white woman in a dark laundry room late at night by a black man with an extensive rap sheet.

    A gang rape of a black stripper by a bunch of upper middle class white kids whose biggest crimes are speeding tickets.

    We all know which is more plausible and more likely to be true. The Left knows this too, but because of the rigid thought and speech codes enforced within Left Wing circles, they can’t admit it. Instead, they run with the second story, which reflects the fantasy dream world the Left wishes were true.

  47. In Nick Gillespie’s interview with Camille Paglia, she lays it all out. A fascinating interview with a true independent thinker who’s been doing it a long time….

  48. ” nothing has definitively discredited her claims. ”

    Bullshit. Her own messages to Nungesser AFTER she claims to have been raped show that her accusation is nothing but wishful thinking.

    -jcr

  49. ” nothing has definitively discredited her claims. ”

    Bullshit. Her own messages to Nungesser AFTER she claims to have been raped show that her accusation is nothing but wishful thinking.

    -jcr

  50. Most studies put false rape complaints in the 10% to 90% range, and the number varies with the population examined. What study put the number as low as 1%? Talk about non-credible.

    1. “What study put the number as low as 1%? Talk about non-credible.”

      Every Feminist “study” so they can claim that false rape accusations almost never happen so you should shut up. Of course to get that 1% you have to obfuscate a lot. They just count the number of ones found false in the courts, which is very, very, very small as most recant or stop talking to the police long before it gets in the courtroom, or there is no evidence for a trial at all.

  51. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobnet20.com

  52. “And it seems to me that George Will’s heavily criticized point about victimhood conferring privilege might have something to do with that…”

    Where am I, The Nation? No one has mentioned Rand yet? Rand was all over this, seventy years ago. Valorization of victimhood has been a part of the left-wing program for decades, and Rand called it out repeatedly.

  53. “If activists actually want to persuade universities and the criminal justice system to mitigate campus rape, they need to consider their biases….”

    Including, most importantly, their bias against men. I’m reminded of how in the ’40s and ’50s white bigots treated blacks.

    Here’s what worries me:

    Campus anti-rape activists complain vociferously about male violence. What they ignore is how with their refusal to understand the sexes on a deeper level, coupled with their “lock ’em up” policies and goals, they in fact are laying the groundwork for more violence.

    It saddens me to say that one day a falsely accused young man whose life is ruined early on and who now has nothing to lose may not bother with a law suit against the college and the accuser. He may instead simply show up on campus armed to the teeth and start venting his anger…..

    Find out how we got here:

    “The Sexual Harassment Quagmire: How To Dig Out” http://malemattersusa.wordpres…..-quagmire/

    This explores the deeper level that the activists choose to ignore. It may be the most exhaustive analysis you can find of what I think is the sexes’ most alienating and destructive behavioral difference, which I believe is responsible for much of what is called sexual assault of women.

  54. I believe quite the opposite.

    I can’t find anyone who can name a valid Campus rape case that made it into court. I would think that simply checking with the Prosecutor or local Court office to see filed charges would easily provide scores of potentials if they were there. Some simple legwork, and probably faster and easier than finding Jackie.

    I went back and looked at the William Kennedy Smith trial where he was acquitted! But that was the full due process.

    And “Mattress Girl” has lost credibility, given the lawsuit of her accused – who was also in the college kangaroo court found not guilty there – but MG turned it into a project with the cooperation of a professor.

  55. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.www.jobnet20.com

  56. The fact is, we let ourselves be talked into believing that women don’t lie about rape, when in fact they do, especially if they are either “authors” trying to score, or the willing tools of Sharpton-style hustlers.

  57. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.worksite90.com

  58. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.worksite90.com

  59. “The lesson of Aesop’s fable, ‘The Boy Who Cried Wolf,’ is not that the threat of wolves is imagined, but rather that the behavior of the boy gives everyone the false and dangerous impression that there are no wolves.”

    In fact, wolf attacks on people are exceedingly rare (In the half-century up to 2002, there were eight fatal attacks in Europe and Russia, three in North America), as is campus rape.

    But, just as wolves have long represented a challenge to human supremacy and hence been demonized, an ideological feminist movement which views men as a challenge to their supremacy invent tales of a “rape culture” and an “epidemic of campus rape” in order to propagate their fictions and advance their agenda.

    This encourages women to “cry rape” in order to be accepted into the ego-massaging community of “victims” and their even more extensive social and political support community, just as the boy cried wolf to seek attention and importance.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.