Here Comes The Left

[ZiprHead]

She doesn’t know the date. Co temporarily she disclosed to friends who urged her not to report to the police because DJT was a BFD. She dud save her dress with semen stains and that info: she had the clothing she was wearing and her friends back her up as to her disclosure plus DJT’s habitual lying and bragging about things he likes to do that ARE indeed sexual assaults made her claims very credible to the jury

And Trump refused to provide DNA that could be matched to the dress stains.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Really? Very few of reported sexual assaults are proven false.

8% are proven false in the FBI data. This is after many are caught at reporting when the officer points out their story doesn't add up. And just because it's not proven false doesn't make it automatically true.

Yes, people do tolerate --and enjoy ---two very different things--different levels of roughness and define roughness differently.

Agreed, but if it reaches the point of being reported as rape I don't really think it's a matter of roughness. I see his words as attempting to pretend things aren't rape that are.

What I told all of my kids: No means no. Always. Lack of enthusiastic engagement means no.

I would say "positive" instead of "enthusiastic".

No one should be convicted of a charge based solely on another person’s say so. Sworn testimony is more than that. The fact is that a lot of sexual assaults are committed where the only evidence is if one party says they did not consent. Most lesser than rape instances of sexual assault are shrugged off: He only grabbed her breasts ( without consent/over objections). He only grabbed her crotch—without consent and over her objections. She only grabbed his penis through his pants—what’s the big deal? Guys like that, right? It’s not like she forced him to get erect. He would t have gotten an erection if he didn’t want it, right? What real man doesn’t want it?

Sworn testimony is still simply another person saying so, just with the possibility of punishment if their words are proven to be a lie.

 

[Toni]

Really? Very few of reported sexual assaults are proven false.

8% are proven false in the FBI data. This is after many are caught at reporting when the officer points out their story doesn't add up. And just because it's not proven false doesn't make it automatically true.

Yes, people do tolerate --and enjoy ---two very different things--different levels of roughness and define roughness differently.

Agreed, but if it reaches the point of being reported as rape I don't really think it's a matter of roughness. I see his words as attempting to pretend things aren't rape that are.

What I told all of my kids: No means no. Always. Lack of enthusiastic engagement means no.

I would say "positive" instead of "enthusiastic".

No one should be convicted of a charge based solely on another person’s say so. Sworn testimony is more than that. The fact is that a lot of sexual assaults are committed where the only evidence is if one party says they did not consent. Most lesser than rape instances of sexual assault are shrugged off: He only grabbed her breasts ( without consent/over objections). He only grabbed her crotch—without consent and over her objections. She only grabbed his penis through his pants—what’s the big deal? Guys like that, right? It’s not like she forced him to get erect. He would t have gotten an erection if he didn’t want it, right? What real man doesn’t want it?

Sworn testimony is still simply another person saying so, just with the possibility of punishment if their words are proven to be a lie.

Loren you repeatedly cite that 8% rate as proven false and repeatedly you are corrected: The 8% is UNFOUNDED—meaning no cirroborating evidence could be found.

Which calls into question the fact that at every step if the way, rape victims are discouraged from reporting/filing charges. Including at the police station. In fact some victims are themselves threatened by police into recanting; sometimes they are themselves arrested, as in the instance of Marie Adler:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts...rama-about-women-who-solved-serial-rape-case/

She was later paid $150K by the city.

I understand that most men would say: she ( or he) just needs to say yes ( however predictably) for it not to be rape. Which means that if she submits so that he won’t go after her child or her friend or kill her pet or fire her, according to you, she consented. Or if she simply felt that it was inevitable and acquiesced in order to avoid being hurt more or to get it over with, you would call that consent.

It’s not really consent. There are many reasons that someone might simply stop fighting without actually wanting the contact to progress or continue. I’ve known of a number of these situations. Men like to say ‘sex she regretted’ when it really was a case of sex she could not figure out how to avoid. Consent implies choice. Consent is not consent if you have no choice.

Enthusiastic consent is much more difficult to misinterpret abd frankly, protects the ( usually) male should the other person claim they did not consent.

You are happy enough to accept sworn testimony if a ( white) victim if they say they did NOT give that guy their wallet or car keys. For women, generally handing over a wallet or car keys is much less traumatic than feeling as though you have no choice but acquiesce in order to avoid more injuries.

You know: Just lie back and think of England. You think someone is being coy. She’s trying to figure out how to survive.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're both going too far, just in opposite directions.

In developed countries it comes down to whether there are signs of life. But that is something that we can at best imperfectly measure. There is no magical instant of death to record whether it happened inside or outside. But in some places they do not count it as a live birth if survival is unquestionably impossible. And I suspect the punishment crowd drives up the rate. I'm thinking of a local case, way too premature to have a chance. The doctor did the humane thing and put it in a room and closed the door. A nurse went ape over that. You have to try to save it! The way the country is going the doctors are going to try on cases that would properly be classified as stillbirths.

I think that was an episode of Call the Midwife.

Infant mortality is directly related to prenatal care, or rather the lack of it. This is something socialist countries sort of take for granted. They look at the US and see people and politicians who claim life is sacred, but don't seem to want to do the simple things that preserve it.

A lack of prenatal care is unlikely to cause a prompt fatality, and thus has little effect on stillbirth vs infant mortality.

As with basically every such issue the people who stand to benefit from the issue will make it appear bigger than it is. And the people harmed by it will make it appear smaller than it is.

I'm not sure who benefits from greater infant mortality, however the count is made, but things like high blood pressure and impaired kidney function have a direct effect on the viability of a new born. After been responsible for two pregnancies in which these were severe complications, I can say prenatal care is critical care made the difference. Both these problems have barely discernable symptoms until it's too late.

Those who are solving or purporting to solve a problem benefit from the existence of the problem.

The Republicans have basically raised this to an art form but it is by no means exclusive to them. Real world, the fundamental job of any organization is to protect it's existence.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think the issue is perceiving something as an assault when there was not such.

I think you’re talking about a psychotic lack of empathy. If a woman feels uncomfortable, there are subtle but unmistakeable signals. I know from experience.
Signals from women who feel threatened have to be far more overt, but I don’t go there so I can’t be sure.
But if a man forces himself upon her, there’s no goddam way I’m going to believe he didn’t know it.

You're missing the point.

Yes, if man forces himself on a woman in almost all situations he knows it.

But that does not prove the opposite--that a woman who felt she was the victim of a hostile act actually was. Rape, certainly, but there is overlap between what constitutes sexual assault and what can happen inadvertently in crowded conditions.

And lesser things--I know I've scared a woman by simply being in a hurry. Really now, I'm going to attack you in an open space with hundreds of people around?? No, you were just moseying down the path such that I had to come close to pass you.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Loren you repeatedly cite that 8% rate as proven false and repeatedly you are corrected: The 8% is UNFOUNDED—meaning no cirroborating evidence could be found.

You saying it's "unfounded" doesn't make it so. That 8% is claims clearly contrary to fact and claims that do not constitute rape.

Which calls into question the fact that at every step if the way, rape victims are discouraged from reporting/filing charges. Including at the police station. In fact some victims are themselves threatened by police into recanting; sometimes they are themselves arrested, as in the instance of Marie Adler:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts...rama-about-women-who-solved-serial-rape-case/

She was later paid $150K by the city.

Paywalled. Netfix documentary so I find it suspect.

I understand that most men would say: she ( or he) just needs to say yes ( however predictably) for it not to be rape. Which means that if she submits so that he won’t go after her child or her friend or kill her pet or fire her, according to you, she consented. Or if she simply felt that it was inevitable and acquiesced in order to avoid being hurt more or to get it over with, you would call that consent.

No, I wouldn't. Consent under duress is not consent.

It’s not really consent. There are many reasons that someone might simply stop fighting without actually wanting the contact to progress or continue. I’ve known of a number of these situations. Men like to say ‘sex she regretted’ when it really was a case of sex she could not figure out how to avoid. Consent implies choice. Consent is not consent if you have no choice.

Careful, here--"could not figure out how to avoid" will include some cases where she submits to gain some benefit.

You are happy enough to accept sworn testimony if a ( white) victim if they say they did NOT give that guy their wallet or car keys. For women, generally handing over a wallet or car keys is much less traumatic than feeling as though you have no choice but acquiesce in order to avoid more injuries.

The false reporting rate on robbery is very low other than theft disguised as robbery.

You know: Just lie back and think of England. You think someone is being coy. She’s trying to figure out how to survive.

I don't support rape. I just have this antiquated notion of innocent until proven guilty.

 

[ZiprHead]

Loren you repeatedly cite that 8% rate as proven false and repeatedly you are corrected: The 8% is UNFOUNDED—meaning no cirroborating evidence could be found.

You saying it's "unfounded" doesn't make it so. That 8% is claims clearly contrary to fact and claims that do not constitute rape.

Which calls into question the fact that at every step if the way, rape victims are discouraged from reporting/filing charges. Including at the police station. In fact some victims are themselves threatened by police into recanting; sometimes they are themselves arrested, as in the instance of Marie Adler:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts...rama-about-women-who-solved-serial-rape-case/

She was later paid $150K by the city.

Paywalled. Netfix documentary so I find it suspect.

I understand that most men would say: she ( or he) just needs to say yes ( however predictably) for it not to be rape. Which means that if she submits so that he won’t go after her child or her friend or kill her pet or fire her, according to you, she consented. Or if she simply felt that it was inevitable and acquiesced in order to avoid being hurt more or to get it over with, you would call that consent.

No, I wouldn't. Consent under duress is not consent.

It’s not really consent. There are many reasons that someone might simply stop fighting without actually wanting the contact to progress or continue. I’ve known of a number of these situations. Men like to say ‘sex she regretted’ when it really was a case of sex she could not figure out how to avoid. Consent implies choice. Consent is not consent if you have no choice.

Careful, here--"could not figure out how to avoid" will include some cases where she submits to gain some benefit.

You are happy enough to accept sworn testimony if a ( white) victim if they say they did NOT give that guy their wallet or car keys. For women, generally handing over a wallet or car keys is much less traumatic than feeling as though you have no choice but acquiesce in order to avoid more injuries.

The false reporting rate on robbery is very low other than theft disguised as robbery.

You know: Just lie back and think of England. You think someone is being coy. She’s trying to figure out how to survive.

I don't support rape. I just have this antiquated notion of innocent until proven guilty.

Here is the original ProPublica story.

An Unbelievable Story of Rape

An 18-year-old said she was attacked at knifepoint. Then she said she made it up. That’s where our story begins.

www.propublica.org

 

[Elixir]

I think the issue is perceiving something as an assault when there was not such.

I think you’re talking about a psychotic lack of empathy. If a woman feels uncomfortable, there are subtle but unmistakeable signals. I know from experience.
Signals from women who feel threatened have to be far more overt, but I don’t go there so I can’t be sure.
But if a man forces himself upon her, there’s no goddam way I’m going to believe he didn’t know it.

You're missing the point.

Yes, if man forces himself on a woman in almost all situations he knows it.

But that does not prove the opposite--that a woman who felt she was the victim of a hostile act actually was. Rape, certainly, but there is overlap between what constitutes sexual assault and what can happen inadvertently in crowded conditions.

And lesser things--I know I've scared a woman by simply being in a hurry. Really now, I'm going to attack you in an open space with hundreds of people around?? No, you were just moseying down the path such that I had to come close to pass you.

WTF, Loren. I’m betting you didn’t get arrested - amirite?
Sure, people get scared by stuff they mistake for something else, scared by their own thoughts. But those situations clear themselves up almost instantly, and are generally NOT reported as rape.
I was in the dimly lit laundry room folding clothes. My wife came in, walked up behind me and screamed (thought I was a stranger in her laundry room), maybe a foot from my ear, and it terrified me momentarily.
Neither of us reported the rape attempt because IT WAS NOT A RAPE ATTEMPT.
If you can’t credit women who actually file a report with having experienced something that would warrant the further torture conferred upon those who claim to have been raped, you have a very dim view of humanity.

I’m not saying all men are guilty as asserted by self identified victims, but the default assumption should be that the person being reported did something untoward. Instead, the default assumption seems to be that the guy was just joking around, the woman was a tease and she got what she deserved, whether that was rape or just a fright.

 

[Toni]

I

Loren you repeatedly cite that 8% rate as proven false and repeatedly you are corrected: The 8% is UNFOUNDED—meaning no cirroborating evidence could be found.

You saying it's "unfounded" doesn't make it so. That 8% is claims clearly contrary to fact and claims that do not constitute rape.

Which calls into question the fact that at every step if the way, rape victims are discouraged from reporting/filing charges. Including at the police station. In fact some victims are themselves threatened by police into recanting; sometimes they are themselves arrested, as in the instance of Marie Adler:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts...rama-about-women-who-solved-serial-rape-case/

She was later paid $150K by the city.

Paywalled. Netfix documentary so I find it suspect.

I understand that most men would say: she ( or he) just needs to say yes ( however predictably) for it not to be rape. Which means that if she submits so that he won’t go after her child or her friend or kill her pet or fire her, according to you, she consented. Or if she simply felt that it was inevitable and acquiesced in order to avoid being hurt more or to get it over with, you would call that consent.

No, I wouldn't. Consent under duress is not consent.

It’s not really consent. There are many reasons that someone might simply stop fighting without actually wanting the contact to progress or continue. I’ve known of a number of these situations. Men like to say ‘sex she regretted’ when it really was a case of sex she could not figure out how to avoid. Consent implies choice. Consent is not consent if you have no choice.

Careful, here--"could not figure out how to avoid" will include some cases where she submits to gain some benefit.

You are happy enough to accept sworn testimony if a ( white) victim if they say they did NOT give that guy their wallet or car keys. For women, generally handing over a wallet or car keys is much less traumatic than feeling as though you have no choice but acquiesce in order to avoid more injuries.

The false reporting rate on robbery is very low other than theft disguised as robbery.

You know: Just lie back and think of England. You think someone is being coy. She’s trying to figure out how to survive.

I don't support rape. I just have this antiquated notion of innocent until proven guilty.

Sigh. Unfounded is the FBI’s term, not mine.

Yes, the benefit she gains by submitting: safety from more damage—to her or another vulnerable person. . Sometimes to keep housing or her job. Those constitute coercion-ie rape.

The rate of false allegations of rape is also quite low. Most organizations that collect the statistics estimate 3-5%.

I do believe that there are plenty of instances where the aggressor does not consider it rape but the victim does—and so does the law. Some of it is genuine misunderstanding. I get that a young inexperienced person may not pick up on signals that the other person is not enthusiastic about sexual contact. The same grace needs to be granted to the victim, usually similarly young and inexperienced and may find herself ( usually herself) in a situation she did not anticipate. For young people especially it is not unusual to find oneself out of your depth in any number of scenarios unrelated to sex and related to sex. Learning curve can be very steep.

Unfortunately this sort of behavior can continue past the first semester freshman year well into middle age and beyond.

No one is suggesting that anyone be convicted without due process.

 

[Toni]

I think the issue is perceiving something as an assault when there was not such.

I think you’re talking about a psychotic lack of empathy. If a woman feels uncomfortable, there are subtle but unmistakeable signals. I know from experience.
Signals from women who feel threatened have to be far more overt, but I don’t go there so I can’t be sure.
But if a man forces himself upon her, there’s no goddam way I’m going to believe he didn’t know it.

You're missing the point.

Yes, if man forces himself on a woman in almost all situations he knows it.

But that does not prove the opposite--that a woman who felt she was the victim of a hostile act actually was. Rape, certainly, but there is overlap between what constitutes sexual assault and what can happen inadvertently in crowded conditions.

And lesser things--I know I've scared a woman by simply being in a hurry. Really now, I'm going to attack you in an open space with hundreds of people around?? No, you were just moseying down the path such that I had to come close to pass you.

WTF, Loren. I’m betting you didn’t get arrested - amirite?
Sure, people get scared by stuff they mistake for something else, scared by their own thoughts. But those situations clear themselves up almost instantly, and are generally NOT reported as rape.
I was in the dimly lit laundry room folding clothes. My wife came in, walked up behind me and screamed (thought I was a stranger in her laundry room), maybe a foot from my ear, and it terrified me momentarily.
Neither of us reported the rape attempt because IT WAS NOT A RAPE ATTEMPT.
If you can’t credit women who actually file a report with having experienced something that would warrant the further torture conferred upon those who claim to have been raped, you have a very dim view of humanity.

I’m not saying all men are guilty as asserted by self identified victims, but the default assumption should be that the person being reported did something untoward. Instead, the default assumption seems to be that the guy was just joking around, the woman was a tease and she got what she deserved, whether that was rape or just a fright.

Loren just has a very dim view of women and most non-white people ( exceptions made for his wife and her family).

 

[Derec]

She doesn’t know the date.

That's very convenient. Temporal vagueness (she is not even sure of the year for fuck's sake!) makes it harder to defend against, as it precludes the possibility that he wasn't even in town on the date she alleges he attacked her.
Waiting 25 years also makes it impossible to have surveillance footage from the store that would show that the two did not go into a changing room together.

Co temporarily she disclosed to friends who urged her not to report to the police because DJT was a BFD.

BFD?
In any case, had it actually happened there would be far more evidence back then than now. If it happened, surveillance footage might show them going into the changing room together. It might show her rushing out of the changing room in apparent distress. There is only advantage in waiting if the footage would not show anything of the sort if it was available.

She dud save her dress with semen stains and that info: she had the clothing she was wearing and her friends back her up as to her disclosure plus DJT’s habitual lying and bragging about things he likes to do that ARE indeed sexual assaults made her claims very credible to the jury

The jury was always going to find against Trump no matter how little evidence she has, just because of how unpopular he is in that jurisdiction.
The dress kept for 25 years in the back of the closet, but then worn to a TV studio to do an interview was always going to be useless forensically.

FWIW, I remember exactly what I was wearing and exactly where it happened the first time I was sexually assaulted, well over 50 years ago.

Did you keep the dress in the back of your closet? Had your attacker become president, would you then wear it - still unwashed or cleaned - to an interview with Anderson Cooper?

I could not, however, tell you the date although I know the month and year.

EJC does not even know the year.

Sexual assaults are traumatic enough that the victim truly does not always or usually remember a lot of details. Details may come back sporadically or not at all, Memories may be fragmented.

That makes it difficult to prove anything. It also makes it easier for dishonest characters to make stuff up and chalk any inconsistencies to trauma and "fragmented memories". The thing is that without evidence, there is no way to prove it happened.
Had EJC really been sexually assaulted, she should have gone to the cops. Then maybe there would have been evidence to back up her story. Her dress would have been tested and kept in controlled conditions with chain of custody preserved. It would not have been worn to an AC360 interview.

 

[Derec]

I think the issue is perceiving something as an assault when there was not such.

I think the issue is not perceiving the issue is assault when it is.

Both are an issue. The former (what Loren said) is a type I error, while yours is a Type II error. I think that here (and when dealing with crime in general) type I errors are far more significant. We should not try to reduce type II errors by lowering the threshold and thereby increasing the number of type I errors.

Men have vastly different criteria with respect to their own thoughts, feelings, actions and perceptions compared with the criteria they use when evaluating women's thoughts, actions, feelings and perceptions. Men as a whole do not experience as much empathy as do women. Men are infantilized in this way, to believe that we women must accommodate whatever their needs are, with relation to sex or their fragile egos. And women do this, in part, to avoid greater physical harm. We minimize and excuse when we really should not because as it happens, it's never just that one time or that one person. Nope it's a pattern of behavior.

That's just a lot of misandrist generalization.

 

[Derec]

Which ones for example? I know you believe Ramirez re Kavanaugh, even though she admitted that she wasn't sure the alleged penis belonged to Kav until she spoke to her lawyer.

Doesn't really matter--she didn't convince me he's guilty. He did.

But the burden of proof should be on her. And her stating that she wasn't sure who it was is fatal to her accusations.
It should never be about the accused having to disprove the allegations, and it most surely should never be about how you feel about the accused, or the way he is acting since that has more to do with his personality than the question of guilt and innocence. And note that I do not think he even publically reacted to the Ramirez accusations since they were not part of the Senate hearings.

 

[Derec]

"Being a bit rough" is not a defense to a rape allegation. It's basically a confession.

"Being a bit rough" is a term relative to personal preference and not at all a confession to a rape allegation. At least not in itself.
There is also not an unequivocal definition of what "a bit rough" means. Rough sex for one person may be considered vanilla by another.

Say two people are having perfectly consensual sex. She feels he is going a "bit rough", and he does it because his last partner liked it that way. If she doesn't say anything, how is he supposed to know she wants it softer? How is he doing anything wrong in this scenario?
And of course, that applies the other way too. She is giving him oral and using too much teeth, or manhandling his two veg a bit too hard. Just like the woman in the first scenario, he should use his words.

 

[Derec]

[Citation needed].

Are you seriously asking for citation that different people prefer different things during sex?

 

[Derec]

And Trump refused to provide DNA that could be matched to the dress stains.

He could have been compelled to provide a sample by a court order.
But I do not think the dress would be useful forensically given the passage of time and haphazard handling, even wearing to to a TV station for an interview.

 

[Toni]

She doesn’t know the date.

That's very convenient. Temporal vagueness (she is not even sure of the year for fuck's sake!) makes it harder to defend against, as it precludes the possibility that he wasn't even in town on the date she alleges he attacked her.
Waiting 25 years also makes it impossible to have surveillance footage from the store that would show that the two did not go into a changing room together.

Co temporarily she disclosed to friends who urged her not to report to the police because DJT was a BFD.

BFD?
In any case, had it actually happened there would be far more evidence back then than now. If it happened, surveillance footage might show them going into the changing room together. It might show her rushing out of the changing room in apparent distress. There is only advantage in waiting if the footage would not show anything of the sort if it was available.

She dud save her dress with semen stains and that info: she had the clothing she was wearing and her friends back her up as to her disclosure plus DJT’s habitual lying and bragging about things he likes to do that ARE indeed sexual assaults made her claims very credible to the jury

The jury was always going to find against Trump no matter how little evidence she has, just because of how unpopular he is in that jurisdiction.
The dress kept for 25 years in the back of the closet, but then worn to a TV studio to do an interview was always going to be useless forensically.

FWIW, I remember exactly what I was wearing and exactly where it happened the first time I was sexually assaulted, well over 50 years ago.

Did you keep the dress in the back of your closet? Had your attacker become president, would you then wear it - still unwashed or cleaned - to an interview with Anderson Cooper?

I could not, however, tell you the date although I know the month and year.

EJC does not even know the year.

Sexual assaults are traumatic enough that the victim truly does not always or usually remember a lot of details. Details may come back sporadically or not at all, Memories may be fragmented.

That makes it difficult to prove anything. It also makes it easier for dishonest characters to make stuff up and chalk any inconsistencies to trauma and "fragmented memories". The thing is that without evidence, there is no way to prove it happened.
Had EJC really been sexually assaulted, she should have gone to the cops. Then maybe there would have been evidence to back up her story. Her dress would have been tested and kept in controlled conditions with chain of custody preserved. It would not have been worn to an AC360 interview.

In the 90’s I doubt there was any surveillance, particularly in Bergdorf Goodmans and certainly not in the dressing rooms.

She puts it late 95-early ‘96–so around the holidays.

For me, my assault was right before school started in the fall—August where I lived. I only remember because I was wearing a brand new back to school outfit. If it had been earlier in the summer or in the fall—I don’t think I would have remembered the month. I was quite young Abd yeah, I remember that particular school year was a big deal because I would be moving to a different t building with the big kids. That’s why remember how old I was.

I agree that she should have gone to the cops. I understand why she did not, particularly because her friends urged her to stay quiet because it was DJTvwhobwas a BFD in the 90’s in NYC.

Frankly I’ve disclosed more on these fora about that assault than I have anywhere else, ever. Partially because of my age and partially because I was fairly naive, I thought the big deal was that he used the word Fuck to tell em what he was going to do and I thought that he was stupid because no one actually said that word out loud and boy would he be in trouble when I told, but I, too was stopped by someone who pretty much knew what happened and had tried to warn me but I brushed it off because I had no idea what she was talking about. It was years before I realized that knocking someone to the ground and declaring you are going to fuck then after grabbing their crotch was actually sexual assault and attempted rape. Partially because I truly had trouble processing what happened and understanding it and frankly was going to have to see this person a lot and so I just …compartmentalized the incident. I did t even want him to get into trouble—I just wanted him to stop. Unfortunately fir me, it was not just a one-off but something that happened sporadically over the next few years until I inflicted enough pain and fear to get him to knock it off—and I could avoid most contact without arousing questions. It really was a long time before I recognized that a big part of what was going on is that he was angry with me. One incident after I stopped him from breaking someone’s arm. The time he tried to kill me? I really don’t know. I cannot connect it to any incident that might have made him angry. But recognizing that it was his anger that was the motivating force helped me a lot. I certainly was doing nothing te items provocative. Honestly, I processed all of this over years and years. I was too young, too overwhelmed.

From the victim’s standpoint, such attacks as what Ms Carroll experienced come out of nowhere. They are as surprising—shocking as an alien abduction. As a pink kangaroo singing ABBA. There was no reason to anticipate any advances, so much as an attempted kiss. It is extremely disorienting. And then your survival instincts kick in: fight or flight or freeze or placate. There are a lot of things happening biochemically— lots of adrenaline, lots of cortisols and other stress hormones. It is too much to take in, to process in the moment.

The difference in outcome between me and Ms. Carroll is that my survival instinct is fight. First avoid but if I can’t- I fight back—hard. That is usually unexpected and that saved me. She was a grown woman and I was a kid. She gathered her wits enough to disclose to friends who advised her to say nothing. I kept trying to figure out what I had done wrong or why he was perfectly nice one minute and the next, horribly aggressive. I told no one. Like a lot of kids, I felt that somehow it must be my fault. And that he would be centered because he was religious and I was not. Stupid resining of a kid. Both of us were experiencing the effects of trauma, hers worse than mine.

I’m only inserting my experience with hers to try to show you the thinking of assault victims.

Like Ms Carroll’s assailant, mine assaulted other victims. His marriages ended amidst accusations of domestic violence. I learned too late that he married a woman with two daughters near the age I was when he first assaulted me. You have no idea of the guilt I carry wondering if he went after them decades after he went after me—and at least one other person that I know of who was also his victim. I tried to warn her but want able to get a chance to talk with her. Marriage ever a few years later. My guess is that her first marriage was abusive as well. Just by her demeanor.. I only met her once, at his father’s funeral.

It’s so much more complicated than having your wallet or your car stolen. Or getting into a fight and someone getting hurt. Getting mugged.

 

[Derec]

Loren you repeatedly cite that 8% rate as proven false and repeatedly you are corrected: The 8% is UNFOUNDED—meaning no cirroborating evidence could be found.

Proven false is a very high bar, and true rate of false accusations is much higher than that. As to "uncorroborated", I think this refers to claims that can be dismissed outright because of contradictory evidence but not the "he said she said" type that may be true or false and there is no conclusive evidence either way.

Which calls into question the fact that at every step if the way, rape victims are discouraged from reporting/filing charges. Including at the police station. In fact some victims are themselves threatened by police into recanting; sometimes they are themselves arrested, as in the instance of Marie Adler:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts...rama-about-women-who-solved-serial-rape-case/

She was later paid $150K by the city.

No system is without error. A case where police get it wrong about a false rape accusation is no more an argument against prosecuting false accusers than police/courts getting it wrong about rape with an innocent man being convicted is an argument against prosecuting rapists.

I understand that most men would say: she ( or he) just needs to say yes ( however predictably) for it not to be rape. Which means that if she submits so that he won’t go after her child or her friend or kill her pet or fire her, according to you, she consented. Or if she simply felt that it was inevitable and acquiesced in order to avoid being hurt more or to get it over with, you would call that consent.

Agreeing because of a threat is not consent, and I would not think anybody would seriously claim that.

It’s not really consent. There are many reasons that someone might simply stop fighting without actually wanting the contact to progress or continue. I’ve known of a number of these situations. Men like to say ‘sex she regretted’ when it really was a case of sex she could not figure out how to avoid. Consent implies choice. Consent is not consent if you have no choice.

Yes, consent implies choice. But if she freely chose sex, but regrets it the next day or next year, then that's not rape. No matter how much radfems on and off college campuses want to pretend that it does.

Enthusiastic consent is much more difficult to misinterpret abd frankly, protects the ( usually) male should the other person claim they did not consent.

"Enthusiastic consent" is the ideal, but it should not be the legal or administrative standard. Do you really want a court, or even worse, a college kangaroo tribunal, decide whether somebody's consent was "enthusiastic" enough?

You know: Just lie back and think of England. You think someone is being coy. She’s trying to figure out how to survive.

Not necessarily. You always assume the worst. Maybe she genuinely consented, as in she had a free choice, but she did not do it enthusiastically enough for your liking. That's still consent.

 

[Toni]

I think the issue is perceiving something as an assault when there was not such.

I think the issue is not perceiving the issue is assault when it is.

Both are an issue. The former (what Loren said) is a type I error, while yours is a Type II error. I think that here (and when dealing with crime in general) type I errors are far more significant. We should not try to reduce type II errors by lowering the threshold and thereby increasing the number of type I errors.

Men have vastly different criteria with respect to their own thoughts, feelings, actions and perceptions compared with the criteria they use when evaluating women's thoughts, actions, feelings and perceptions. Men as a whole do not experience as much empathy as do women. Men are infantilized in this way, to believe that we women must accommodate whatever their needs are, with relation to sex or their fragile egos. And women do this, in part, to avoid greater physical harm. We minimize and excuse when we really should not because as it happens, it's never just that one time or that one person. Nope it's a pattern of behavior.

That's just a lot of misandrist generalization.

It’s not really. Do you think that everyone who takes someone else considers it raie? Recognizes that the other person is saying no, trying to avoid the contact, trying to escape. Or just freezing, hoping it will stop soon.

You think it’s misandrist. I don’t. I think the same applies no matter the sexes or genders involved.

 

[Derec]

I’m not saying all men are guilty as asserted by self identified victims, but the default assumption should be that the person being reported did something untoward.

No. The default assumption should be one of neutrality, and then it should shift this way or that based on evidence.