None of the obvious weaknesses in the research has had the slightest drag on the campus rape movement, because the movement is political, not empirical. In a rape culture, which “condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as a norm,” sexual assault will wind up underreported, argued the director of Yale’s Sexual Harassment and Assault Resources and Education Center in a March 2007 newsletter. You don’t need evidence for the rape culture; you simply know that it exists. But if you do need evidence, the underreporting of rape is the best proof there is.

Expelled college man's lawsuit complains that when two intoxicated students have sex, the male is deemed a rapist while the female is deemed a victim

Moral panic for fun & profit

AN EXERCISE IN EVIL.

Let’s play a game. I want you to imagine for a while that we are a cabal of evil villains that have decided for nefarious purposes to create a state of moral panic. Not that myself or any other ethical person would ever actually put this into practice. We are only going to take a stroll down the road of hypothesis in order to see where it might lead us.
In order to start this journey, let us take a scary word and see what we can do with it. Rape. We all know the definition of rape and what it entails. It is even a familiar word which causes it to lose some of its shock value. As an aside that will only be important down the line, we need to mention that rape is an act found in nature. Many animals rape, and at least one genus of animal, felis, only reproduces through rape.  All male cats have a barbed penis, and partially paralyze the female by biting her on the back of her neck while mating. The screams heard coming from a female cat during sex is from pain as evidenced by the fight she puts up in trying to escape. If this is not an act of rape, then no act is.
From the mighty lion to the beautiful Himalayan curled up in your lap, every cat is a product of rape.  It can be argued that rape is an evolutionary cheat, a way of reproducing even though an animal might not otherwise be a suitable mate. This is not a defense of rape, but simply an explanation for how it arises and remains in a population of animals. Rape is fairly simple to understand. Yet even with our understanding the very word has a negative effect on our brains.
This is due to what is referred to in psychology as a negativity bias. Basically this means that people will give more attention to a negative event than to a positive one. When considered in terms of survival this makes sense.  The adage ‘Once bitten, twice shy’ remains a cultural phrase in several forms just because it is a useful piece of information to convey. People who have experienced a negative event will require far fewer indicators of danger before they react. This is an evolutionary survival response, where reaction to false danger is more productive than failure to react to actual danger. In other words, our minds and bodies are wired for fight or flight.  But how can this come into play if we have not actually suffered the event?
Words have a direct effect on our brains. Language is a part of how we think, and language is conjoined with emotion. As we are wired to respond directly to negative or dangerous situations, our minds prioritize potential dangers and act accordingly. Likewise, when we hear negatively biased words, we begin to react to them negatively, even if it has not happened to us. An example of this would be the word ‘murdered.’ Not a single one of you reading that word have at this moment been murdered. And yet the negative association triggers minute responses in your body. The word implies threat, even though you are not directly threatened. In this small way the negative association with the word causes a reaction. Still, there is another way that words can work on you as well – emotional contagion.
Emotional contagion seems to be a driving force in mob mentality. It is spread much like a virus throughout concentrations of people. We can convey a lot of information through both physical and verbal cues. When combined with our natural tendency to react to negative events or triggers over positive ones, crowds pick up on negative emotional states or expressions like disgust and fear quickly.
Emotional contagion sounds remarkably similar to Richard Dawkins’ meme theory. A meme is an idea or concept that spreads from person to person throughout a population. Also like viruses, memes can mutate as they spread. Fads can be seen as a form of meme, as can slogans, catch phrases, and various other concepts. We may also take advantage of emotional contagion to spread fear. But in order to take the word rape and make it not just cause a vague sense of unease, but a real force of terror, we need to add a few more ingredients to the cocktail.
We can increase the shock value of the word rape by attaching to it another word that in itself is completely innocent. Perhaps a word that in most cases would be seen as positive. How about the word ‘culture’ for instance? When we think of the word culture, what normally comes to mind, unless you work in a laboratory at least, is the collection of achievements, values, and practices of a civilization. These are wonderful things. We also tend to associate culture with good taste. Culture is a happy word, a word that makes you just a little proud when you think of it.
Ah, but now the word becomes attached to a negative association- rape. “Rape as a culture? How horrific!” one might rightly think. We have just taken a negative word and kicked it up an order of magnitude. Now rape is not something associated with the individual, but with an entire population.  A word that would normally function as a positive bump to the mind has been corrupted through association.

We have done a fairly good job of creating fear so far. We have found a way to take a positive word and attach it to a negative word in order to form a verbal chimera that is considerably more fear inspiring than just the negative word alone. We have also found a method in which to spread this chimera by relying on human’s innate tendency to focus on harmful words. Even were we to leave things as this, we would still have managed to generate a degree of fear. But that would be too short of a hike down this road. We can do a lot better than this if we set our minds to it.  To this end we will continue to exploit biology.
What we need to do next is create a mythology to support our chimera. We can take mundane interactions and attach them to the mythology. We know that friends and associates have a camaraderie that will make them behave in ways that that most would usually consider unethical when it comes to protecting their own in-group. The people in your in-group or clan are to be protected at the expense of outsiders. Naturally there will always be some in these groups that will set aside their moral convictions in order to fabricate an alibi for a member of their in-group. We have seen this behavior all through history. It is ‘us versus them’ mentality, and is a natural extension of evolutionary group survival.  We can exploit this natural trait and co-opt it into the mythology by claiming it as part of rape culture. “See how those frat boys are all covering for their guy? Rape culture!”
Good, we have a start here, but there is a lot more work that we can do. Today we have a view of what is attractive and healthy that in many ways is identical to that of ancient Greece. We find well toned individuals and those with clear skin to appear more healthy and attractive than we do people with poor complexions and out of shape. Again, a lot of this is evolutionary biology. Bad complexion can be an indication of disease. Poor physical condition means less ability to bring in food. These are traits we are genetically programmed to look for.  Advertising takes this into consideration and selects models that fit the current ideal of attractive and selects male and female models based on the public perception of beauty. We will disregard the male models that meet our ideal standard with their sculpted forms and rippled abs, and instead point to the females. “You are making her into a sexual object by displaying her. Rape culture!”
Splendidly done! Let us continue down this path and see where it leads. We can point to prostitution. Prostitution is observed in penguins with the female trading sexual favors for shiny stones. Some species of hummingbird females trade sex for food, as do numerous insects.  Even female monkeys will prostitute themselves for food. Prostitution is a matter of supply & demand, just like any other service. The female is exchanging her sexual services for something she desires.  It is fairly important that we in the role of evil villains nip this one in the bud, because we are trying to use rape to create fear. If people can just pay for sex there will be less rape. This will not do!  Yell it with me now. “You are exploiting that poor woman through your solicitation of prostitution. Rape culture!”
We are well on our way now, but we can’t rest yet. In our exploitation of biology, rapeof biology if you will, we need to make rape itself even worse. We are very much aware of the fact that rape exists in nature. We can see how it can be used as a reproductive shortcut.  We are still civilized, though, and we understand that rape can have a detrimental effect on society. We also possess empathy which helps the majority of the human race cooperate. Naturally, we criminalize rape. Actually we cannot even take credit for that, as our ancestors etched those laws into clay and stone long eons ago in our dim past. Still though, in our role as evil villains, we need to find some way to make rape seem even more horrendous than it already is.
To do this, let’s take a look at criminals. Crime happens all the time. We are to a degree desensitized to crime because we understand what criminals are doing and how they think. A burglar robs your house because he wants what is in the house and is more concerned with his satisfaction than he is in your security and peace of mind. He will steal your car for the same reason and with the same lack of remorse. In the same manner, the rapist rapes because he or she wants sex. There is nothing surprising about it. There are no political motives. The tiger is not raping because he wants to repress the tigress or because he wants to stifle her political ideology. He is raping because he desires to have sex.
The college student that first asks a girl on a date then tries to sway her with sweet talk and pleasant verbal coercion while touching and fondling until rejected and only then resorts to more coercive tactics is not repressing the girl out of hatred or a desire to control her. He is behaving that way because he wants sex. But let us not forget that we are playing the role of villains, so we need to twist this around. We will do this by taking the natural crime out of rape and claim it is an act of control, not sex. This technique works marvelously, as now when anyone points out the obvious fact that rape is rooted in our biology we can scream “You are a rape apologist. Rape culture!”
This is turning out incredibly well for a hypothetical exercise. Next we need to take these tools of evil and begin to apply them. We will need to dig up some statistics first. We will scour various sources for rape figures. When those figures do not add up to enough to convince people, we twist them around, we add different figures together to reach higher numbers. Heck, we are villains, if the figures don’t say what we want them to, we can just make up figures on the spot! This will work, and I will explain why.
We are going to present these figures along with our newly created mythology to congressmen and lawmakers. We are going to petition these same people demanding laws be created to protect us from our construction. We are going to sweetly approach police chiefs and sheriffs and offer to educate their forces free of charge. We will prey on their natural empathy as well as using negative bias & emotional contagion to our advantage. These are horrible things we are telling them. Their first reaction is going to be shock, then horror and outrage. They are going to want to know what they can do to protect their loved ones from this. They are putty in our hands.
College deans will be almost as easy to convince. This is an emotional appeal, granted one that is only backed with shoddy and false information, but their moral character will be seduced by way of negative bias just as the lawmakers were.  We will even create a college rape myth while on campus to better stir the coals of fear.
We keep up the pressure until we get a single law passed in favor of our villainous construction, then point to that law as proof that we are on the right track. Domino effect as more and more people fall victim to this evil scheme. Newspapers pick it up, as does television and radio. We throw the words ‘Rape culture’ like rice at a wedding. The meme spreads, panic ensues. Women everywhere are gripped in a viral moral panic. “What do we do?” they ask “Rape is everywhere around us!”
The women begin to take precautions. These are sensible precautions like everyone takes in order to prevent crime. Common sense precautions like removing the keys from their ignition and locking the car doors in order to help prevent their cars from being stolen. We will tolerate none of that! “Why should we have to change the way we act?”becomes our meme. “Teach the bad rapists to stop raping! Rape culture!” is a perfect way to keep the rapes happening.
Of course if you report to the police that your car was stolen and during the course of the investigation he learns that you left the keys in the ignition while you ran into the store, the officer is going to tell you that you had it coming. But as we the hypothetical evil villains have convinced both the officer and the hapless citizen that rape is not like other crimes, he will not even think of taking the woman’s dress, behavior, or location into consideration.
This is exactly what we the villains want, because if fewer rapes happen we are tasked with creating more false statistics. Besides, the real thing is much better for business because then we can exploit the poor rape victim by parading her case around with an air of triumph. Now they will really start to believe the meme of rape culture. And with that belief comes the full blown moral panic that we were looking for.
We have managed to transform an already nasty word into one of terror. We have relied on our own biological nature to make the most of this generated fear. We have rigged the deck to increase rapes by taking more prostitutes out of the picture while convincing women that it is not their duty to take reasonable precautions to protect themselves from rape.
We have even neglected to mention to them that most rapes are perpetrated by close associates, not strangers, making them even more susceptible to being raped. We have capitalized on human nature to spread our fictional creation and have seen how it balloons. Now all that is left is to use the power of fear to being strategically maneuvering the government in whatever direction our criminal minds wish.
Were we actually evil villains, there could be few quicker routes to seizing power than this without resorting to a bloody coup. From the fear and turmoil we could build upon this framework, using it is a springboard for other related fear mongering. We would have our feet in the door and could drop more false statistics on the table to back anything else we desired to push.  Using fear to control the masses, and shame and oppressive laws to silence the lone voices of dissent we could swing laws and milk state & federal funds into any schemes we felt like controlling.  Humans are childishly easy to manipulate once you begin to turn their own biology and psychology against them.
Now this was only a hypothetical exercise. I am confident that none of us are so vile, so evil, so monstrous as to actually put something like this into motion.  No, it would take someone far less ethical that we good fellows to ruthlessly pull the emotional strings of entire nations for fun, profit, or other selfish reasons.
References:
http://related.springerprotocols.com/lp/de-gruyter/negativity-bias-in-language-a-cognitive-affective-model-of-emotive-w0L20WmKHE
http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/1998/vol2/marsden_p.html#HEADING
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rfoster/repropath/surgicalpath/male/cat/normal_tomcat.htm
http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Birds/Archives/2005/Mating-in-a-Material.aspx
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1700821,00.html
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

Written byBrutal Antipathy

Share viaSocial Media

2 POSTS IN TOTALSee Them »

Along the same lines, feminist Ludy Wadham writes for CNN:

". . . the Strauss-Kahn case has uncovered the divide, not between men and women so much as between old and new feminists. Old feminists, from Genevieve Clark to Erica Jong, believed that the goal was political and sexual freedom for women, not the political and sexual subordination of men.

"I cannot accept the idea that womanhood automatically implies victimhood, nor do I think that it is a desirable state of affairs when women see men as the enemy.

"The man-hating tirades of my female colleagues are nothing but puritanism in disguise and I suspect that our feminist forebears would be dismayed by the climate of inquisition that seems to dominate relations between men and women today." (Read the entire piece here)

Friday, August 26, 2011

Women's advocates do disservice to rape victims by telling them that justice was not served in the DSK case
FRS Reveals What's In the Motion to Dismiss: It's Eye-Opening

This is a post intended for rape victims. Although this blog gives voice to victims of wrongful rape charges, we also want rape victims to be able to seek healing and justice. A close a family member of mine was a victim of a brutal sexual assault. We do not harbor rapists at FRS nor do we advocate for them to elude justice.
To all victims of sexual assault we say this: do not -- we repeat -- do not allow the decision by New York County prosecutors to dismiss the charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn ("DSK") to dissuade you from reporting that you've been raped.

You are being terribly misled if you listen to the persons or groups who suggest that the DSK case sends a "very bad message to women vulnerable to sexual abuse" that rape victims have to be "perfect" in order to get justice. It is most distressing to read the following: ". . . for many feminists and victims' advocates, the victory for Strauss-Kahn is a defeat for women who have been sexually assaulted or raped, and who may already have been nervous about coming forward." See here.
By failing to tell the whole story, and by publicly insisting that women can't get justice unless they are "perfect," those victims' advocates, themselves, are improperly discouraging rape victims from coming forward.

The accuser in the DSK case, whose name is Niasfatou Diallo, wasn't just not perfect; according to the very prosecutors who arrested and charged DSK (and allowed him to experience a humiliating and high profile "perp walk"), she was "persistently" and "inexplicably" untruthful to prosecutors. But don't believe me -- read the motion to dismiss that was filed by prosecutors. I suspect that very few, if any, of the persons who are alarming rape victims have read it. See here: http://www.scribd.co...tion-to-Dismiss We are going to explain it, below. We suspect it will be eye-opening for a lot of people.
In their motion, the prosecutors make clear: "That an individual has lied in the past or committed criminal acts does not necessarily render them unbelievable to us as prosecutors, or keep us from putting them on the witness stand at trial." But the prosecutors explained that Diallo's case was different: ". . . the nature and number of the complainant's falsehoods leave us unable to credit her version of events beyond a reasonable doubt . . . ." They explained that Diallo's "credibility cannot withstand the most basic evaluation. [She] has provided shifting and inconsistent versions of events surrounding the alleged assault, and as a result, we cannot be sufficiently certain of what happened."

The lesson, as shown below, is that in rape cases, which often hinge heavily or even entirely on credibility, rape victims need to be completely honest with prosecutors. I am aware of many rape cases brought to trial where the accuser was herself accused of making prior false rape claims, but this did not dissuade the prosecutor from bringing the rape case to trial. Having an imperfect victim does not normally preclude charges from being brought to trial. But lying to the prosecutor, whose job it is to try to weave a credible narrative for the trier of fact, will.According to the motion to dismiss: "In virtually every substantive interview with prosecutors, despite entreaties to simply be truthful, [Diallo] has not been truthful, on matters great and small . . . . Over the course of two interviews, for example, [she] gave a vivid, highly-detailed, and convincing account of having been raped in her native country, which she now admits was entirely false."

Diallo's "longstanding pattern of untruthfulness" includes some false statements under oath about this case to the grand jury, which would have been revealed at any trial. Diallo admitted that she lied to the grand jury about her activities in the immediate aftermath of the alleged incident. And it wasn't even limited to that. Diallo "displayed a repeated lack of candor about a wide range of additional topics concerning her history, background, present circumstances, and personal relationships." She has been "persistently" and "inexplicably" untruthful to prosecutors, the motion said.

Let's focus on one. Diallo gave prosecutors "irreconcilable accounts" of what happened in the immediate aftermath of the alleged incident. From May 14 to June 28, Diallo told prosecutors that after the incident, she immediately fled DSK's suite at Room 2806 of the Sofitel Hotel near Times Square and went to the far end of the 28th floor hallway. She claims she spit out semen on the carpet of the hallway.

On June 28, however, she admitted that she had lied under oath to the grand jury and that she had been untruthful with prosecutors on material points about this incident. For the first time, she admitted that immediately after the incident, she went to another room, room 2820, to finish cleaning it. She detailed her activities in cleaning in that other room. Then, she said, she returned to DSK's room and began to clean it as well. Then, she happened to encounter her supervisor when she went to a linen closet to retrieve supplies.

Prosecutors checked out the electronic swipe records and determined she was only in room 2820 for a very short time -- less than a minute -- and could not have engaged in the cleaning activities she detailed.

On July 27, her story changed again. This time, she said she had cleaned the other room, room 2820, earlier in the day, not after the alleged assault. She said that after the alleged incident, she ran into 2820 only momentarily to retrieve cleaning supplies. And, importantly, she denied that she told the same prosecutors a different version of the story on June 28, as noted above. That latter denial caused the prosecutors to call her credibility into question on a most fundamental level. (The suggestion from the motion is that they lost all faith in her.) Prosecutors said they had no confidence as to whether Diallo would tell the truth on this issue at trial, which is highly problematic. They simply didn't know what to believe.Diallo also lied to prosecutors about being gang raped in Guinea. Again, much misinformation about this lie have been floating around the press. On May 30, she told prosecutors a powerful, emotional, and convincing account of being gang raped in the presence of her 2-year-old daughter. But on June 8 and 9, she admitted "that she had entirely fabricated the attack." Asked why she had lied, she told prosecutors that she had relied on the incident in her application for asylum (in fact, she had not), and besides, she said, her prior statement to prosecutors wasn't under oath.
Have you read enough yet?

Wait, she's not finished. Then, she admitted that she had learned the gang rape tale by memorizing a fictional rape recounted on a cassette tape because she intended to use it when she sought asylum. But she decided not to use the tale in her written asylum application.
Prosecutors found it fatal that Diallo had lied with with the same conviction about the alleged gang rape in Guinea that she employed to describe the alleged incident at issue. On June 9 and 28, she insisted again that she had been raped in other incidents in Guinea, but prosecutors had no way to investigate these alleged incidents.

Beyond that there were other credibility problems. She repeatedly committed fraud in seeking low income housing. Moreover, she had a telephone discussion with her alleged fiance about financially profiting from the DSK incident. Despite insisting she did not want to benefit financially from the case, she later filed a civil action for money damages.

In addition, the motion painstakingly details the fact that there is no physical evidence of forcible compulsion or lack of consent.
The prosecutor, the motion explains, has an obligation not just to the "victim" but to society. He has a duty to seek justice, not just win cases. His or her obligations are bottomed on the "fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent [person] than to let a guilty [person] go free." While charges may be brought on probable cause, felony prosecutors in New York County have a policy of only bringing cases to trial where they are personally convinced of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, they were not so convinced.
My summary can't do justice to the motion. The cumulative effect of a cavalcade of lies, both big and small, under oath and not, and especially the lies told to the prosecutor whose job it is to present a credible narrative, was overwhelming.
To suggest that the charges were dismissed because Diallo is not a "perfect" victim is a gross and puerile distortion of reality and can only dissuade rape victims with legitimate claims from coming forward. To better serve both rape victims and the presumptively innocent accused of heinous sex crimes, we need to move the discourse to a more mature level.

It is well to note that no one else, aside from women's advocates, are spreading the view that justice was not served here. There is, in fact, a widespread international consensus among objective observers -- observers who do not speak regularly on gender issues and have no axe to grind in the matter -- that the sexual assault charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn were properly dismissed. That consensus was generated not by any sympathy for Mr. Strauss-Kahn, who is by no means a sympathetic figure, nor by antipathy for his accuser's gender, race, or ethnicity, but because it is painfully self-evident that the charges simply are not sustainable. Many thoughtful observers, including feminist Naomi Wolf and a host of serious commentators in the European community, viewed with alarm American law enforcement's zealousness in bringing the charges. Those who condemn the dismissal of these charges voice a position that is so extreme and discordant with fundamental values cherished by our jurisprudence, and that strays so far from the mainstream of serious and reasoned thought, that they have lost any rightful claim to participate in the public discourse about the serious issues relating to sexual assault.
The prosecution of sexual assault raises a host of complex issues that require the nuanced balancing of critical and delicate interests: we must, on the one hand, strive to punish malefactors, and on the other, insure that the innocent are not punished with the guilty. The balancing of those two imperatives is difficult enough in the rape milieu without injecting childish and shrill politicization into the discourse.
False rape accusers should not come forward, eveyone with any sense agrees with that. But by any measure, justice for DSK should not stop rape victims from coming forward. Those who suggest otherwise are hurting rape victims.

Link to the Motion: http://www.nytimes.c...smiss-case.html

Posted from the False Rape Society web site.

One does have to wonder how or why any female would want to destroy someone's life by lying about an event that never happened. How does that individual come to that decision as in most cases it appears to be impromptu, a spur of the moment decision where at other times it's a calculated, time consuming, cunning bit of mental masturbation that would have taken considerable thinking time and process to derive to a fanciful yarn that must be believable to fool the "experts" enough for them to "feel" exonerated and thereby achieve the affect the lies were originally initiated for..
The result of those lies can be devastating as we have already witnessed where the real victims have been either murdered, totally destroyed by mental breakdown, committed suicide or hopefully exonerated and regained some dignity when once the liar is exposed for what she really is..

All of these false claims ofcourse are encouraged by the feminist movement as they have played around with the interpretation of the law, the jurisprudence, it's interpretation. They have even gone so far as to suggest that a false rape claim would benefit any man which ofcourse they would claim was just a joke when queried which no one has to date. They should also be asked how they manipulated the police force to automatically make the assumption that a "women never lies about rape" which is in actual fact one of their lying mantras and how has that lie influenced the legal system as well..

It all goes to demonstrate how complete the feminist influence is and how far that corruptive influence goes deep into the annals of a system that should have outright rejected it out on the principal that it is impossible for a women not to lie..

No charges for girl who admitted telling rape lieby Archivist

Girl lied over ‘rape attempt’

Woman is victim of elaborate revenge plot, and the lessons for false rape cases

by Archivist

This isn't a false rape case, it's the story of a classic rush to judgment that is, in many ways, typical of the cases we feature here. It holds an important lesson for the kinds of cases we normally cover here, but you have to read to the end to get to it.

The New York Times reports that a woman named Seemona Sumasar accused her ex-boyfriend of raping her, and in retaliation, he concocted "one of the most elaborate framing plots" police had ever seen that left Ms. Sumasar's life in tatters.

"One night, Ms. Sumasar was pulled over by the police. Before she could speak, detectives slapped handcuffs on her. 'You know you did it,' she said one later shouted at her. 'Just admit it.'” Sumasar was charged with carrying out a series of armed robberies, supposedly based on credible witness statements and proof that her car was the getaway vehicle. A despondent Sumasar sat in jail for seven months, helplessly watching as she lost her restaurant franchise and saw her house go into foreclosure. 

Finally, the plot unraveled. It was, of course, all a lie.  Prosecutors defended their actions in proceeding against her by noting "that the web of false evidence presented by [the ex-boyfriend] was so detailed they had little reason to doubt it."

Anthony Grandinette, Ms. Sumasar’s former lawyer, said law enforcement was negligent, and he posited an explanation that is instructive for this case, and others: "Why would a tiny woman with no criminal record, who worked 10 years on Wall Street, randomly hold up people at gunpoint at night dressed as a policewoman?” Mr. Grandinette asked. 

That is a plausible explanation in Ms. Sumasar's defense, but it's also instructive for the typical false rape cases we feature here: the sort of explanation proffered by Mr. Grandinette is simply not readily available to the vast majority of men and boys featured on this blog.  When an ex-girlfriend, ex-wife, or acquaintance accuses a guy of rape, we never hear this excuse:  "Why would a guy with no criminal record, who worked 10 years on Wall Street, want to rape this woman?”  The widely held, albeit markedly dubious, presumption, which is actually a shared cultural tenet, is exactly the opposite--"men will hit on/screw/f*ck anything that moves."  And not just for consensual sex.  Professors, legal scholars, and people taken seriously by mainstream news outlets instruct us that rape is rampant and, in fact, "normalized to the point where men who are otherwise decent guys will rape and not even think that it's wrong." (Jessica Valenti)  Throw all that together and what you're left with is that the rape of any female by any male above a certain age is deemed plausible.

And that plausibility is why false rape claims are much more common than cases like Seemona Sumasar's.

Christian J. 

Just as the so called "victim" is protected it should also be the case that one is innocent until proven guilty. Too many false rape charges have destroyed the lives of men and for no other reason that someone felt it necessary to make a false charge for whatever reason they choose, imaginary or otherwise. It is a miscarriage of justice and should not be condoned. At the moment, any woman can make a false charge against any man for just about any reason as the law has been changed to such a degree regarding rape that it is basically unworkable and thereby makes a victim out of any real victims. Statistics demonstrates clearly that false rape charges are on the increase and those women who falsely claim rape are not even held accountable. Miscarriage of justice does appear to sum up the entire "Rape" industry and it is a disgrace..

Wednesday, July 27, 2011 08:46 AM ET
MISOGYNISTS!!!1!!!1!
Yes, I am here to pre-emptively accuse all of you MISOGYNISTS TROLLS who are out in force to comment on this vile article!
As any infallible feminist can tell you, GUILT MUST BE PRESUMED whenever one of you penis-bearing SCUM is accused of perpetrating a Vaginal Holocaust with your filthy patriarchal flesh-sword.
HANG YOUR HEAD IN INDELIBLE SHAME, MISOGYNIST!!!11!
Vigilance, Sisters!
—Linney Uston

Please add your comment to Roy Black's article at Salon
from The False Rape Society by Archivist
Here: http://www.salon.com/news/crime/?story=/mwt/feature/2011/07/27/dsk_kobe_assange_flatley

Here is my comment:

My Web site, False Rape Society, is dedicated to giving voice to the community of the falsely accused, and I find many of the comments here -- which seem to insist that men and boys falsely accused of rape arent't even worthy of discussion -- to be morally grotesque.

We have the utmost respect for our sisters who have been raped, many of whom have told us they share our loathing of false accusations. We believe that rape is a problem; we also believe that false rape claims are a problem. It isn't "either/or." Mr. Black's article happens to be about false rape claims, but I suppose one article about the falsely accused is one article too many.

On my site in the recent past, we've reported on women who've made false rape claims for the following reasons: the accuser’s boyfriend took too long to buy cigarettes; several women didn’t want to pay cab fares, so they accused innocent cab drivers of rape; a girl wanted to get back at her teen ex-boyfriend — her rape lie not only got him convicted, but two of his friends as well; a woman wanted to get back at her ex-boyfriend for breaking it off, so she falsely accused him of rape and candidly admitted: “I just wanted him to be hurt because of what he’d done”; a young woman said she wanted her young ex-boyfriend “to feel extreme pain”; a woman sent a man to prison for five years because she said she was bored; a woman was bent on revenge after a road rage incident; a man refused to give his false accuser a beer; a maid falsely accused her employer of rape because she didn’t like her workload; a girl falsely accused a man of rape for throwing a flower at her; a woman caused three men to be interrogated for rapes they didn’t commit because she wanted a day off from work; and an 18-year-year-old young man was hauled out of class, arrested, and jailed for a month on a random false rape claim by a girl he had never even met.

What's the harm to men falsely accused who aren't convicted? It ranges, but at the very least, most are forever tainted by the accusation. Some extreme examples are unspeakably awful:

There was the woman who lied to her cousin that her boyfriend had raped and beat her. She asked the cousin to shoot him in the penis "so he don't use it no more." In the end, the boyfriend and his friend were shot to death.

Then there was the case of six young men who beat a man with a claw hammer at a false accuser's request while the false accuser sat in a van outside.

A girl lied to a 17-year-old boy that another youth raped her. The boy confronted the youth, and during a confrontation, the youth's father accidentally shot the boy dead.

A 15-year-old girl falsely told her boyfriend that an 18-year-old man raped her. The girl, the boyfriend, and another man drove to the innocent youth’s apartment, and one of the men shot him through a peep hole.

Two teenage girls lied to a 19-year-old man that another 19-year-old had raped one of them, so the first man broke into the accused man's home and beat him to death with a baseball bat while he was sleeping.

A 47-year-old prominent businessman suffered devastating brain injuries in a vicious attack after a woman's brother was wrongly convinced the man had raped his sister, so the brother thrashed him. So terrible was the man's beating, he had to “learn everything again.”

A man came home unexpectedly from a trip when he found his wife and her lover together. To cover up her affair, the wife falsely told her husband she had been raped. The husband killed the wife's lover.

And we could go on and on. But, you see, the falsely accused don't deserve ANY advocacy on their behalf. In the minds of some, they aren't worth discussing.