The Myths About Women Who "Cry Rape"

I don't think there are Peanut. I certainly can't think of any. Although there is the attitude of a man being weak or soft if he is victim to some crimes eg DV but I don't think they get the level of blame that female victims get.

I used to get drunk all the time years ago, I used to go clubbing with a group of friends, we'd all get disgracefully drunk and then I'd go and crash at the place of one of them, along with 2 other guys. So there was me and 3 blokes, all riotously drunk. On several occasions, 2 of them would drag/ carry me home. Not once did any of them rape me, because none of them were rapists. Being drunk did not lead to me being raped because I was not in the company of rapists.

Contrary to your very unthought-out post Misshodgeinmay, feminists don't believe all men are rapists. It's people who think that if women get drunk, they might get raped, who believe all men are rapists. Men don't turn into rapists when a woman gets drunk; only people who deep down believe all men are rapists, believe that.

Oh, and by the way MissHodge (if you're reading this) - I am a bloke and am quite welcome in here to join in discussions (and have never been attached for being male). But I don't make any rediculous and general accusations at the whole board that are obviously migonistic in nature. Get a grip.

I think there are other situations as well as rape where women get blamed for a crime against them. It's not just where it's her word against his, it happens when there's hard evidence. DV victims often get the comment 'why didn't you just leave him'. I read an article about a woman who's child had been abducted by the father and taken abroad and the comments underneath where 'well why did she marry him, why didn't she stop him, why didn't she use a contact centre'

Herb, ignore MisHodge. That is the one an only post ever used under that name, and it was obviously set up to walk in and pick a fight with the fem board. I think it would an idea to report the post to HQ just in case it is you-know-who.

RE the "it's your fault for getting yourself in that situation." Yes, in principle we advise people to be careful. But realistically, even if you were walking home drunk, half naked, down a dark ally in the middle of the night after attending an orgy, they still have no right to force themselves upon you - it is still wrong and they should be convicted.

Misshodgeinhay, do you have any argument to bring to the discussion, or did you just come on the feminist board purely in order to sneer at it? If one of the regular posters tells you to fuck off because it looks very much as though you have joined this thread purely to tell everyone that the feminist board is a load of shit without actually advancing an argument, will you then go and start a thread in another section whingeing about what a horrible load of meanies the feminists are?

Viz this demand for "independent evidence", what exactly is your definition of independent evidence, Moonferret and others who think like him? Do you mean that you want a rape to be witnessed by an independent witness? So no conviction should ever occur if the rape wasn't witnessed by a third party? Shariah-style? Or is independent evidence something different?

I know, right? Because I have been in so many situations where if I had been raped I would never have reported it because of the sheer mortification of having to go through it all in public, as well as the "well you shouldn't have gotten yourself into that situation" comments that I'd expect from the more old-fashioned contingent of my family!

What I'd like to understand is why, when there are so many negative consequences to making an allegation of rape (having your character and actions torn to bits in court as well as the social repercussions), would anyone make a false allegation?

I'm not passing judgement, or denying that it exists, of course not, but I would genuinely like to know what people think might be the psychological motive for "crying rape"?

We know that false reporting of other crimes occurs. People fake burglaries for the insurance money, or claim valuable items were stolen from them when they either lost the item or never owned it in the first place. Yet when someone reports having a mobile phone nicked in the street, the automatic response from friends/colleagues and even the police is not usually 'Are you sure about this? Lots of people tell lies about mobile phone theft.' Even when the 'victim' tells lies that (for instance) contribute to local racial tension eg claiming that his/her property was stolen by a member of a particular ethnic minority when in fact the victim sold the property already or never owned such a thing, the victim is still believed at least in the beginning.

Just because a defendant isn't convicted, it doesn't mean the complainant lied.

This was my first thought. Finding someone 'not guilty' of a crime, and I mean any crime, doesn't mean they didn't do it. Just look at O.J. Simpson.

I think some people confuse the fact that over 90% of rape trial see the defendant cleared, and take this to mean that a large number of those cases are where the woman lied, but it doesn't mean that at all. It simply means that in the jury's mind, there wasn't enough evidence to convict.

There are men walking around around who were cleared in a court of law, but who did commit the rape, and are therefore rapists. My brother-in-law is one of them.

There are a small number of women who do make up rape claims, but more often then not they admit the truth sooner rather than later, and thus such cases rarely get to the trial stage.

So small is the percentage of women who are believed to make up rape claims, that my first inclination would always be to believe the woman, as the vast majority of women are telling the truth.

Sparky/DCMP please accept my sympathy for the horrible experiences you've been through.

Sparky asked about repeat rapes. I found this a 1999 study by Acierno, Resnick, Kilpatrick, Saunders and Best published in the Journal of Anxiety Disorders. They seem to be prolific authors in established American science journals, along with another author called Clum, so I think their studies would probably stand up to peer scrutiny.

Anyway, their study of 3000 women concluded that a woman who has been raped once was seven times more likely to be raped again.

I presume that this is for a number of reasons, such as:
? Many rapes are carried out by intimate partners/former partners.
? Others will be perpetrated by someone in the victim's social circle which can leave them vulnerable to a repeat attack and reluctant to report
? Disadvantaged, vulnerable young woman would be much more at risk for obvious reasons
? Due to the trauma of rape, some victims will engage in promiscuous behaviour as a coping strategy or put themselves in positions where they become more vulnerable.

The Daily Mail loves to publish stories about "false" claims of rape. Reporting of these stories is completely out of proportion with even convicted rapes.

See this Home Office Report into Ending Violence Against Women & Girls - lots in there about the media and coming up with a Code of Practice for journalists re this issue. (Topical too with all the recent press revelations).

It's not for anyone else to decide what is right and wrong, I guess. It's perspective that decides what's a good and bad memory after all. But in reading the stuff that comes up in searches, a lot seem to regret it. I don't know if that's societal stigma or actual regret. There is also a big difference in having sex with a number of people and becoming a prostitute.

The Stern Review - meditrina - you indicated you'd like to read something with facts etc.