Posts Tagged ‘anger’

Well, since I have been gone, I have heard of great commotion in the realm of the Tiger. It seems, that his Swedish Viking Gal,  Elin Nordegren took a golf club to his ass for cheating, he crashed some big expensive Cadillac, and then the shit fell through the roof.
I don’t remember when it all first broke out, but that’s not what this article is about, its about “Tigerness”, no matter how big and bad he may seem, one cannot forget, he still a cute little kitten. No matter how big and bad his golf game was, no matter how much money he had, and no matter how much pubic hair he shaved off, he was still fritz the cat.
Lets face the facts, Tiger, despite his millions, is a slump, he is an omega-dreg in a way that is so HARD core. I mean, just listen to the way he spoke to his whores ( that is what you have to be in order to go down on the Tiger, right?? ), any man knows, a whore is not his equal, and many suspect, no western women are there equal in dignity, ( but possibly in function ). But just listen to him talk to her like she is his mother, like a boy who just got his hand caught in the cookie jar, taking to many pussy’s out and then dropping one on what would just happen to be his wife’s feet ( And it was when she looked down on the pussy/cookie that fell on her feet, she got the golf club, his most powerful iron dick-substitute. )
And, he is in such bad taste of women too, such ugly whores, I mean, even if your an omega-dreg, Cmon!!!, you have got BILLIONS!!, go buy yourself one of those “Empire” girls like Elliot Spitzer.
Rachele Utichel
Another One
Another One
The really Ugly one he banged in a church parking lot
The Junkers JU 88 Flying wing
SHE WOLF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ugly Porno slut number 1
Ugly Implant-boob porno slut number 2
OHHHH, it still may not be over, but my question knowledge is, would this happen to some real Alpha, like George Cloney, or some fag chicks love like, like Johny Depp, ………NO, that’s because women would always want the opportunity to get another chance……
But no one wants to get another chance at anything but the Tigers money. And that is fact.
PS. I have found it interesting that he never choose to fuck anyone but pieces of trashy shit ( they go to the porno stars because they don’t complain about ruff anal, just sayin ). I mean come on, he could have at least gone to Russia or Ukraine to get some quality, some class…….but that tells me a lot about the Tiger, when given the opportunity for class and quality he will go for the feces with an open hole to fuck. ( Even Elin is a piece of Swedish shit, look at this youtube vid, and you will see that both Russia and Sweden birth much more attractive women than anything Tiger has tapped )
PPS. And that brings me to my second point, brought to me by Lady Dissident in her post on Tiger of which she will be gladly added to the blog-roll for upon request; I ( and others ), think Tiger is quite the racist. He must really hate ANYBODY with a drop of ethnicity in them ( Even the super attractive Slavs, Baltic chicks, Asians, and maybe even Germans!!! ) to go so far as to screw so many ugly pieces of American trash before even ogling at any women with an actual heritage. That is an especially hard blow to African Americans, I mean Cmon!!!, he already said he wasn’t black, but a strange Hybrid called a “Caublackasian”, and now he would screw so many ugly trash shit holes before looking into ANY race( other than the race of American trash ), but apparently, especially not his own.

Read Full Post »

I have been going though the comments since I have been back, and have noticed, one little ducky stood out. His name was “Dale”and he commented on my post about the great role men played in the sexual liberation of women. And let me tell you something about “Dale”, he is the vagina man, and not in a good sense. In a well written post, to which humans seemed in mutual agreement, he chose to be the man with nads small enough to feel the need to not even refute the article, but launch an attack on ME……….. Just read it…………….

Wow, so much writing, yet all you manage to convey is that you’re a bigoted and misogynistic caveman masquerading as somehow enlightened. You’re not even worth additional words–an angry man seeing the brutish world you love ever slowly fade away. Good riddance.

I mean, is that all you had to say!!!, A jab at ME, not the article, there were so many things you could say about the article, but instead, you panhandled me a bunch of words which he probably had to use the spellchecker to type correctly.
A. I don’t “Love” anything, especially anything you describe.
B. I have never heard a male use the term “misogynistic” in that reference. Damn!
Well, I am not really sure if “Dale” is a guy, he ( She ) may just be using an alias, which is quit a good idea on the net, but in light of such..uh…I don’t even know what to say, either u have one tiny cock, or you are a “Well” of a woman.
Was this your Gender???????

Read Full Post »

If women really loved men just as much as men loved women:

*Why is it men that generally pay for dates?

*Why do men traditionally take most of the initiatives?

*Why do some women expect men to buy them so much stuff on Valentine’s Day? Why do so many women expect flowers, spa treatments, boxes of chocolate, and other gifts from men? Don’t men also deserve these things? Shouldn’t Valentine’s Day include both genders?

*Why do women generally expect men to buy them wedding rings? Are men not “special” enough to also get a ring?

*Why do divorced men commit suicide 10x as often as divorced women? Don’t women feel as much heartbreak after divorce?

*Why are 2/3 of breakups initiated by women? Are men less “likable”?

*Why are men traditionally objectified as disposable protectors, heroes, or breadwinners when many females seem to receive love based on their looks alone?

*Why do many women expect to be the ones to feel “protected” or “taken care of” like a princess or “damsel in distress”? Can’t a man expect these things too?

*Why are there so many more homeless men than women? Are homeless men less likely to marry and earn a woman’s love?

*Why is “chivalry” generally something that women expect from men?

*Why is the man the one expected to be the disposable “bodyguard” to get up at night if there is a loud noise?

*Why does society as a whole seem to have more compassion for “women and children” than men?

*Why do many women expect “crying privileges” and a shoulder to cry on at any moments notice? Why do many women perceive a man’s tears and vulnerability as “weakness”?

*Do women have any “protective instincts” for their men in the same way that some people claim that men have “protective instincts” for their women? If not, does this imply that women love men less than vice versa? After all, we tend to put more effort into protecting the things in life we value more.

*Do women love their children more than their husbands? Is a woman’s “chivalry” generally reserved only for her children (or pets)?

*Why does a man have to “earn” his way into a woman’s bed? Why are some men willing to pay for a prostitute while women would never sleep with a gigolo even for free?

*Why do men (much like job applicants) compete with other men to impress a woman(when she gets to play the role of the choosy employer)?

*Why are so few women or feminists willing to get in the trenches and help do society’s dirty work to help reduce male injury, male disposability, and the longevity gap?

*Why do women and feminists seem to care more about the glass ceiling than the glass cellar?

*Why do women and feminists seem to care more about the so-called pay-gap (which is a myth) than the female-dominated spending gap? Why do some women expect to spend most of the money that the man made?

*Why are there seemingly so many more chivalrous male feminists than female masculists?

*Why do many men treat women as “queens” when many women treat men as “worker bees”?

*Why are so many men “took to the cleaners” after a divorce? Don’t men have feelings like women do?

*How many women are willing to support a stay-at-home husband (and let him spend a large portion of her money)?

*Why do “tomboys” and “daddys girls” seem to be considered charming or cute while “mama’s boys” and “jill girls” seem to elicit images of laughing stocks that still live with their parents and are too “unmanly” or “lazy” to deserve a girlfriend?

*Why aren’t women sometimes made to feel “efemilated” by their mates in the same way that men are sometimes made to feel “emasculated” (it is telling that “efemilated” isn’t even considered a real word)? Why isn’t there a phrase “take it like a woman” to go with the phrase “take it like a man”?

*Why do many women (and men) seem to have pink ribbons on their cars for breast cancer awareness at the expense of also rallying for prostate cancer awareness? Is women’s health more important?

*Why do some women find it easier to slyly “support” or “thank” a man for engaging in dangerous work or war instead of actually showing real thanks by actually doing some of the dirty work themselves (after all, actions speak louder than words)?

*Why do some women not allow metrosexuals the same fashion privileges as themselves? Why are the mens departments so much smaller than the womens departments in many clothing stores?

I know I am generalizing a bit, but I think in general men are traditionally socialized to think of themselves as “less than” women and women are socialized to think of themselves as the proverbial “prize” to be fought for. As such, men could very well be at least half the problem for this less-than-savory state of affairs. At any rate, A first date with a woman can almost seem like a job interview to a man. It seems like many feminists and women want the good parts of traditional roles coupled with special treatment with their new roles. This is not progress….it is traditional and age-old expectations of pampered entitlement.

As for men, I think they need to drop that macho facade and demand better treatment for themselves (and other men). Machismo may indeed be a form of brainwashing to keep men “in their place”. Men are not disposable wallets, and shouldn’t expect to be treated that way by other men or women. They are human beings. I think society should advocate a “new chivalry” where we all protect and care for each other.

I think it would behoove men to consider if it is really worth it to love someone else who might not love them back equally. If a man is willing to “take a bullet” for his true love, it only seems fair that the woman would be willing to do the same for him.

Gender roles hurt us all. Feminists have made their case for equality. Now masculists have to continue doing the same (if true equality is the goal). True equality involves equality in relation to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If this is indeed a goal of any given commonwealth, this means helping society close the life expectancy gap, disposability gap, female sentencing gap, spending gap, and establishing equal opportunities for finding joy. It might behoove masculists and feminists alike to join forces in achieving this goal. After all, it seems to me that most people are mindless robots who could essentially care less about masculism or feminism.

Read Full Post »

A few days ago I heard from a dental nurse that her dentist had looked up the address of her patient before deciding how much to charge her. The patient lived in a good part of town, and so the bill for the removal of her wisdom tooth was bumped up – without her knowledge, of course.

That’s not fair! – was my initial reaction.

But then, I suppose, the dentist would argue that she can charge whatever she likes, and, further, that by doing this sort of thing, she would not have to charge so much to her less well-heeled patients.


Well, that sounds a bit fairer.

I suppose.

But, on the other hand, surely she is just squeezing out of her patients as much money as she thinks that she can get away with?

It all depends how you look at it. It depends on the ‘spin’. But what is the right thing to do?

If the dentist charges the same to everyone, then this is a bit unfair on the poorer patients. On the other hand, if she charges the wealthier more, then this would be a bit unfair on the wealthier patients.

But what is the right thing to do?

Charging wealthier people more for the same services seems to be morally acceptable. After all, this is how the income tax system works. The wealthier pay more taxes for the same governmental goods and services that the poorer will pay less taxes to receive.

It sounds fair.

On the other hand, in most situations, regardless of their wealth, people purchase goods and services at the same price. For example, the supermarket and the electricity board do not determine how much to charge people for their goods and services based on their wealth.

So, in practice, both things seem to be generally acceptable. And, on the whole, it all seems to be more a question of balance. Provided that the wealthier are not charged too much more than poorer folk because of their financial position, they do not create too much of a fuss about it.

But for any given differential between the two, a fuss, at some level, is usually made.

For example, there are some considerable forces at work both to try to reduce the tax burdens on the wealthier as well as to increase them.

As a general rule, the right-wing wants the differentials in tax to be reduced, and the left-wing wants them to be increased. And the only point that I am trying to make in this article is that there is no real solution to the problem. There is no right and morally correct thing to do. It is all a question of balance.

And so there will always be a tussle between the two camps.

But ‘tussle’ is surely too tame a word for what is, in fact, much more like a war.

If you think about the huge amount of energy and resources that go into this problem, it is clearly no minor tussle; the form filling, the accountants, the lawyers, the politicians, the Revenue services, the investigations, the financial planning and pension schemes, the hiding of funds in tax havens, the fiddling of accounts, and so on.

The enterprise concerned with this issue alone is positively enormous!

And it will probably remain so for a considerable length of time to come because there is no solution. There is no right and morally correct thing to do. There is nowhere to be found where to draw a line which will be acceptable to everyone.

It is all a question of balance, with some people leaning one way and with other people leaning the other way.

There is a permanent state of war!

But the balance between the two sides can be very much affected by the motives that appear to be behind the policies being applied.

And this is of considerable significance.

For example, the dentist can be portrayed as a Robin Hood figure, helping the poor by taking some more from the rich. But, on the other hand, she can be seen as something of a Scrooge who is simply trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of each of her clients.

The more that she can get away with, the more she charges.

And who could ever really know the truth behind her motives?

Now consider the following.

Should a woman who can carry one brick in her wheelbarrow be paid the same as a man who can carry two?

By and large, the women will answer Yes to this question, and the men will answer No. But, just as in the previous case concerning the dentist, there is no place where to draw the line that is acceptable to everyone.

For example, if the woman is to get paid the same as the man despite the fact that she does only half the work, then the men will see this as unfair. On the other hand, if the woman gets only half the pay because she does only half the work, then the women will argue that this is unfair because women cannot physically do the same job as the men.

And the important point to understand is that there is nowhere to draw the line that will be acceptable to both sides of the argument.

And so it is that the quest for women’s ‘equality’ will never be achieved.

Just as in the case of the dentist charging differential amounts to different patients, there will always be arguments over where to draw the line.

And, just as in the wheelbarrow case, there will always be different ways of portraying the opponents.

“Women are just too selfish. They expect to get paid the same for carrying one brick as we men will get paid for carrying two.”

“Men are just too selfish. They expect to get paid more than women even though women put in the same amount of effort.”

A permanent gender war over pay!

And, of course, the one-brick versus two-brick argument is just a trite metaphor for all the arguments that might surround pay. In the real world, the arguments over pay might be over the issue of, say, women in the military getting the same pay as the men despite the fact that they are very rarely asked to risk their lives. Or, perhaps, the argument might be over whether or not a woman who has chosen to take eight years away from her job in order to have children should get the same pay on returning to work as those men and women who have worked without such long term absence.

And, of course, the arguments concerning the two genders will not be confined solely to issues that arise over pay. These controversial issues will – and do already – extend to the family, the children, the home, the workplace, divorce, the justice system, the health services, and so on; in fact, they will extend to wherever there is an issue where one gender might seemingly be being treated differently, or preferentially, to the other.

And these issues can be made to be controversial wherever men and women function together in their lives – in other words …

… just about everywhere!

And in arguing for the line to be drawn so that it always heavily favours women, the feminists and their supporters have, indeed, managed to invade everybody’s lives just about everywhere.

Thus, in much the same way that there are huge and pervasive industries that have to deal with the ins and outs of our taxes and our welfare system in order to ‘draw the lines’ when it comes to money, other huge and pervasive industries have been growing in order to help to ‘draw the lines’ in the battles of the genders – though, thus far, these industries have been highly prejudicial against men.

But, because there is no way that these lines can be drawn in a manner that will be acceptable to everyone, there will always now be a tussle between the two genders! – with the tussle becoming much more evident – and much worse in nature – now that the men’s movement is growing.

There is no solution even to the problem of how much a woman should be paid relative to a man when it comes to carrying bricks in their wheel barrows.

And there will also certainly be no solution when it comes to most other matters.

The arguments are therefore going to be endless, and the balance is going to swing this way and that way for ever more.

What a terrible thought!

Not just over pay, remember. But in just about every area of life.

Thus far, however, for the past 30 years, the feminists have been arguing the case for women almost unopposed. The case for men has been silenced through the weapons of intimidation and political correctness.

In fact, there has not been much of a tussle at all.

But this is now changing.

Even though it is still the case that huge resources are being put into bolstering the case for women, the case for men, at last, is beginning to garner more and more support.

And, in the not too distant future, billions upon billions of dollars worth of our energies and our resources are going to be bound up in dealing with these insoluble issues – the issues surrounding the differential treatments of the two genders, and where to draw the lines.

What a waste of our time.

But there are three big differences between the tussles over drawing the line between those who have more money and those who have less (the dentist scenario, taxes etc) and between those tussles relating to gender issues.

The first difference is that our personal relationships, which are probably the most important areas of our lives – far more important than money in the eyes of most – are being interfered with by outsiders.

The second difference is that the industries that are being spawned to deal with these gender issues are encroaching upon people to an extent that is rapidly becoming unacceptable, and it is causing relationships to break down.

And the third difference is that the two genders are being divided into opposing sides to an extent that is probably unknown in history.

It is a nightmare scenario.

There is nowhere to draw the line! – and so there will be a permanent gender war; until, that is, the feminists and their phony victim groups are finally kicked into the oblivion where they belong.

Read Full Post »

In his latest column for the New Statesman, John Pilger compares the current drum-beating for war against Iran, based on a fake “nuclear threat”, with the manufacture of a sense of false crisis that led to invasion of Iraq and the deaths of 1.3 million people.In 2001, the Observer in London published a series of reports that claimed an “Iraqi connection” to al-Qaeda, even describing the base in Iraq where the training of terrorists took place and a facility where anthrax was being manufactured as a weapon of mass destruction. It was all false. Supplied by US intelligence and Iraqi exiles, planted stories in the British and US media helped George Bush and Tony Blair to launch an illegal invasion which caused, according to the most recent study, 1.3 million deaths.

Something similar is happening over Iran: the same syncopation of government and media “revelations”, the same manufacture of a sense of crisis. “Showdown looms with Iran over secret nuclear plant”, declared the Guardian on 26 September. “Showdown” is the theme. High noon. The clock ticking. Good versus evil. Add a smooth new US president who has “put paid to the Bush years”. An immediate echo is the notorious Guardian front page of 22 May 2007: “Iran’s secret plan for summer offensive to force US out of Iraq”. Based on unsubstantiated claims by the Pentagon, the writer Simon Tisdall presented as fact an Iranian “plan” to wage war on, and defeat, US forces in Iraq by September of that year  a demonstrable falsehood for which there has been no retraction.

The official jargon for this kind of propaganda is “psy-ops”, the military term for psychological operations. In the Pentagon and Whitehall, it has become a critical component of a diplomatic and military campaign to blockade, isolate and weaken Iran by hyping its “nuclear threat”: a phrase now used incessantly by Barack Obama and Gordon Brown, and parroted by the BBC and other broadcasters as objective news. And it is fake.

On 16 September, Newsweek disclosed that the major US intelligence agencies had reported to the White House that Iran’s “nuclear status” had not changed since the National Intelligence Estimate of November 2007, which stated with “high confidence” that Iran had halted in 2003 the programme it was alleged to have developed. The International Atomic Energy Agency has backed this, time and again.

The current propaganda-as-news derives from Obama’s announcement that the US is scrapping missiles stationed on Russia’s border. This serves to cover the fact that the number of US missile sites is actually expanding in Europe and the “redundant” missiles are being redeployed on ships. The game is to mollify Russia into joining, or not obstructing, the US campaign against Iran. “President Bush was right,” said Obama, “that Iran’s ballistic missile programme poses a significant threat [to Europe and the US].” That Iran would contemplate a suicidal attack on the US is preposterous. The threat, as ever, is one-way, with the world’s superpower virtually ensconced on Iran’s borders.

Iran’s crime is its independence. Having thrown out America’s favourite tyrant, Shah Reza Pahlavi, Iran remains the only resource-rich Muslim state beyond US control. As only Israel has a “right to exist”in the Middle East, the US goal is to cripple the Islamic Republic. This will allow Israel to divide and dominate the region on Washington’s behalf, undeterred by a confident neighbour. If any country in the world has been handed urgent cause to develop a nuclear “deterrence”, it is Iran.

As one of the original signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has been a consistent advocate of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. In contrast, Israel has never agreed to an IAEA inspection, and its nuclear weapons plant at Dimona remains an open secret. Armed with as many as 200 active nuclear warheads, Israel “deplores” UN resolutions calling on it to sign the NPT, just as it deplored the recent UN report charging it with crimes against humanity in Gaza, just as it maintains a world record for violations of international law. It gets away with this because great power grants it immunity.

Obama’s “showdown” with Iran has another agenda. On both sides of the Atlantic the media have been tasked with preparing the public for endless war. The US/Nato commander General Stanley McChrystal says 500,000 troops will be required in Afghanistan over five years, according to America’s NBC. The goal is control of the “strategic prize” of the gas and oilfields of the Caspian Sea, central Asia, the Gulf and Iran  in other words, Eurasia. But the war is opposed by 69 per cent of the British public, 57 per cent of the US public and almost every other human being. Convincing “us” that Iran is the new demon will not be easy. McChrystal’s spurious claim that Iran “is reportedly training fighters for certain Taliban groups” is as desperate as Brown’s pathetic echo of “a line in the sand”.

During the Bush years, according to the great whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, a military coup took place in the US, and the Pentagon is now ascendant in every area of American foreign policy. A measure of its control is the number of wars of aggression being waged simultaneously and the adoption of a “first-strike” doctrine that has lowered the threshold on nuclear weapons, together with the blurring of the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons.

All this mocks Obama’s media rhetoric about “a world without nuclear weapons”. In fact, he is the Pentagon’s most important acquisition. His acquiescence with its demand that he keep on Bush’s secretary of “defence” and arch war-maker, Robert Gates, is unique in US history. He has proved his worth with escalated wars from south Asia to the Horn of Africa. Like Bush’s America, Obama’s America is run by some very dangerous people. We have a right to be warned. When will those paid to keep the record straight do their job?

Read Full Post »

How often do women falsely cry rape? Since an 18-year-old high school student who admitted lying after telling police that five men had tricked her into a bathroom and then gang raped her two weeks ago, that question has been flying around in my head. From my experience the answers to that question fall into one of two camps. “Many feminists argue that the problem of false accusations is so minuscule that to discuss it extensively is a harmful distraction from the far more serious problem of rape. On the other side are men’s-rights activists, claiming that false accusations are as much of a scourge as rape itself.”

But isn’t the rate of false rape charges an empirical question, with a specific answer that isn’t vulnerable to ideological twisting? Yes and no. There has been a burst of research on this subject. Some of it is careful, but much of it is questionable. While most of the good studies converge at a rate of about 8 percent to 10 percent for false rape charges, the literature isn’t quite definitive enough to stamp out the far higher estimates. And even if we go by the lower numbers, there’s the question of interpretation. If one in 10 charges of rape is made up, is that a dangerously high rate or an acceptably low one? To put this in perspective, if we use the Bureau of Justice Statistics that show about 200,000 (when I saw that, I knew that was some “SVU” propaganda) rapes in 2008, we could be looking at as many as 20,000 false accusations.

When I was younger the police used to be routinely suspicious of rape victims. “Surely the simplest, and perhaps the most important, reason not to permit conviction for rape on the uncorroborated word of the prosecutrix is that the word is very often false,” a Yale Law Journal article opined in 1952, echoing a view voiced since at least the 17th century. These views remained mainstream into the 1970s, if not later. As Marcia Clark said yesterday recalling the 1977 rape charges against Roman Polanski, “Those were the days when folks still believed rape was ‘easy to charge and hard to disprove.’ ” And that old adage couldn’t have been further from the truth. Prosecutors well knew that unless the victim was Snow White, the case was toast.”

I remember when fem bot Susan Brownmiller Wrote her hypocrisy of a book : Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape,

In her book, Brownmiller said that only 2 percent of rape allegations are false, citing findings by the female police in a New York City rape squad. The problem is that while this statistic has been widely repeated, with dutiful mentions of New York-based “research,” no one has ever tracked down its source. This we learned from a comprehensive review of the literature on false rape charges published in the Cambridge Law Journal in 2006. The author, Philip Rumney, finds a couple of small studies that back up the 2 percent claim but isn’t confident of their methodology.

Rumney’s survey of the terrain is the best we found. He also takes aim at the findings on the other end of the spectrum—the research that purports to show that the rate of false allegations of rape is in the range of 40 percent, as well as the flawed (but often cited) work that makes a crazy high jump to as high as 90 percent. The 40 percent figure is usually attributed to a 1994 article by E.J. Kanin in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. Kanin looked at 109 reports of rape to police in one small Midwestern metropolitan area over nine years. His pool was small. The police he studied always offered the victim a polygraph—perhaps signaling they doubted her veracity. And Kanin himself “warns against generalising from his findings” and points to reasons for questioning them, as Rumney explains.

The hugely high 90 percent false rate is several degrees more suspect. The citation for it is usually a study in Scotland by police surgeon N.M. MacLean of only 34 rape complaints made from 1969-74. Complaints were labeled false if they were made after a delay. Or if the victim didn’t look “disheveled” or upset or seriously injured. But those factors don’t necessarily indicate that a rape charge is trumped up. When police use stereotypes about rape to sort real allegations from false ones, they can do victims a real disservice, as this model paper from the Oregon Attorney General’s Sexual Assault Task Force explains. In a 1981 study of 16 reports that claimed the victim admitted to making it up in 14 of them, one case was disproved because the police decided the woman was too large for the alleged rapist to have taken off her “extremely tight undergarments” against her will. Need we say that this not the critical eye we want from the cops?

Rumney’s smart debunkings leave us with a group of American, British, Canadian, and New Zealand studies that converge around a rate of 8 percent to 10 percent for false reports of rape. Not all of these studies are flawless, but together they’re better than the rest of the lot. They include a massive 1997 report on sexual assault by the U.S. Department of Justice, which includes data from 16,000 local, county, and state law enforcement agencies. The DoJ found that “in 1995, 87% of recorded forcible rapes were completed crimes and the remainder were classified as attempts. Law enforcement agencies indicated that about 8% of forcible rapes reported to them were determined to be unfounded and were excluded from the count of crimes.”

If 8 percent to 10 percent is about right for false reporting of rape, based on what we know so far, how should we think about that number? Rumney says he’s not sure whether crying wolf is more or less likely over rape than over other crimes, because the comparative research is even less conclusive. So that’s a question that appears to have no answer at the moment. (A 2001 Department of Justice report says that the rate of false reports is similar for other crimes, but it also gives the 2 percent figure without a source, so we’re skeptical.)

What is clear, however, are two problems that are the flip side of the same coin. False charges of rape are an absolute nightmare for the men caught in their net. And the specter of made-up allegations is a real problem for law enforcement—which means they are also a problem for women who are telling the truth. Let’s take the men first. Ive heard from many of my own men tell me there own stories. The first one that comes to my mind is one a navy seal told me in Iraq, equal parts heartbreaking and thoughtful:

My girlfriend was raped several years ago. I had been falsely accused of rape less than a year ago. I called her (I had known her before her incident) because I was desperate for someone to talk to who would understand what I was going through. To my great relief, it turned out that we understood each other very well. From the initial stages of suicidal thoughts and not being able to function to the long-term fear, mistrust, and guilt that are facts of our lives, it turns out that her experience of being raped and mine of being falsely accused of rape were very similar. … One important difference, though, is that when she was violated, she received a great deal of help (medical, legal, psychological). Apart from family and friends, I was on my own. My legal and psychological problems had to be dealt with by me at a time when I couldn’t eat, sleep, or think (except, of course, about killing myself).

On the law enforcement end, we heard from Steve Cullen, an Army attorney who’s worked extensively as a prosecutor. He offered this cogent—and dire—explanation of the reverberations when women cry wolf about rape:

False reports have an incredibly corrosive impact on how sexual assault accusations are policed. Police treat sexual assault accusers badly—much worse than the lawyers do—much worse than the courtroom does. Forget what you see on “SVU,” the police end absolutely discourages victims from reporting. Why is this so? Because cops suspect just about every victim is another false accuser, because either he/she has personally dealt with such a problem, or has heard stories from his or her cop buddies to this effect (and yes, in my experience female cops can be even worse offenders). This police behavior is bad, and counterproductive—but it’s real. Putting a real stigma on false reports might combat this a bit—and make it a little easier for actual victims at the police station.
False reports also have a disproportionate impact on juries. How I’d hate to be prosecuting a sexual assault right now. Often in sexual assault prosecutions there’s no debate as to the sex, but everything falls on proving lack of consent—and can only be proven through a convincing and persuasive victim’s testimony. Often, that victim’s testimony has to overcome some less than ideal circumstances—she was drinking, people observed her flirting with the perpetrator etc. That’s something she can own up to, and overcome on her own. What she can’t do on her own is extinguish jury members’ memory of reading of some spectacular false accusation case in the newspaper last month. Every false accusation that makes it into the news makes it that much harder for the real victims to receive justice.

If police and juries are influenced by false reports, especially high-profile instances of false charges, like the Duke lacrosse case or the Hofstra case, why wouldn’t those reports influence victims, too? Up to 60 percent of rapes go unreported. The Hofstra story will only make more women wonder if the police will believe them.
This is sobering. As, of course, is the whole topic. We’re left to draw the following conclusion: False allegations of rape aren’t rampant. But they don’t have to be to cause terrible trouble. This is a problem that a men’s rights movement shouldn’t trump up. And also one that feminists can’t dismiss.

Read Full Post »