Is questioning whether a rape happened insensitive to rape victims?

I was about to ask this question in another post, but it got shut down, so I'll ask it here. The post suggested we should be more sensitive about the subject of Rape, which I think is a good idea. On the other hand the reason we are talking about Rape involves the case at Duke (unless I missed something). I personally find the victim's story more likely to be accurate than the lacross team's story, but the evidence does not seem clear cut to me. I could see how someone would decide that the Lacross team was more accurate.

But it seems a common experience that rape victims are disbelieved. Can expressing disbelief in the presumed rape victim in the Duke case can bring back bad memories for those who have experience rape and that disbelieve first hand?

I should also note that there are more polite ways to express disbelief and more jerk ways to do it. Saying "That woman is just a filthy liar" is a little different from saying "I don't think her story checks out."

On the other hand, believing that the woman, in this particular case, did not get raped does not mean that one is in favor of rape or doesn't care about rape.

Anyway, any thoughts on how to navigate these trecherous waters?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Why has this one "media story" been hyped into a bizzaro series of "what ifs"?

Here's another = What if Goofy is found to have his hands down a mentally challenged Mickey's pants. Should he be charged with a crime? :wtf: Over!

Sorry, at this skewed point in tangential questioning, it's not productive nor mentally healthy IMO to continue to "give a damn" one way or the other. ;) :hi:

in that you say something like you don't personally know what happened but that you hope the truth comes out is one way. Another is to comment on both the alleged victim and the alleged perps equally.

One thing that strikes a nerve with me about this whole situation is something that happened in my family. A relative who is mentallly and physically challenged was raped at a school outing. Since she cannot speak, nothing was known about this until it became evident she was pregnant. The local cops treated it as a joke, and didn't even bother to gather DNA evidence when the abortion was performed. It was like, hey she's a retard, had a little fun, the mess is taken care of, so what? I'm wondering if in some situations and in some areas, the police don't take rape all that seriously.

There are some places, some precincts, some individual cops who are good. Some prosecutors are good. But most first hand experiences I've heard about have been either hostile or dismissive.

and/or sheriff is.

Most cops DO treat rape seriously because they've seen the more dire extremes of it. Most cops I know call it "unfinished murder." Apt, wouldn't you say?

However, if the political arm of their organization won't let them move forward, they won't. And they justify it with stupid jokes and dismissive attitudes.

Sure, you get assholes, like the times you've referenced, but, even in some podunk counties in which I was a reporter covering emergency service personnel, the police, by and large, took rape seriously.

speech is more speech. If people are so fragile as to suffer harm from boorish or sexist or whatever comments on any given subject on DU, they should avoid those threads. Sorry if that sounds callous, but I'm not willing to water down free speech. If the mods find that a comment has broached DU rules, they'll remove it.

no one wants to take any responsibility. Along with the right to free speech comes the responsibility to be sensitive and not offend if you don't have to, to use your speech wisely. There are ways to talk about the current Duke lacrosse case without being offensive but I think some people on this board (and in this world) don't give a damn whether they hurt people or not. One of the hallmarks of being a liberal is caring about other people.

:hug:

:hug:

This is THE thing that underlies everything else for me. It takes so little effort to be kind, to be sensitive. And it's good for your general karma. I just don't understand people who seem to think "free speech" isn't just a right...it's a license or even an obligation to be an asshole.

They're just flawed human beings like other humans who adhere to different political philosophies.
And although it would be nice to see everyone maintain civility and sensitivity in their on line discourse, it ain't gonna happen. You're wrong. There is no responsibility to be sensitive inherant in the right to free speech.

Everybody has a perfect right to be an asshole, should he or she choose to, and so long as they don't step outside of the boundaries imposed by the law and the moderators.

But I don't mind the suggestion that people should refrain from being assholes.

Bryant

There are limits to free speech, and one of those limits is injury to your fellow man (or woman).

Yelling "you're ugly" at someone may cause them emotional distress, but its still protected by the First Amendment.

onenote

...someone feels when they're told "you're ugly."

Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges, IMO.

There's emotional hurt, and there's emotional damage.

How about someone yelling you're ugly to someone who had acid thrown in his/her face? Yes, it's terrible to be raped. Yes, it's terrible to be a victim of incest, but there are other equally terrible things in that happen. In fact, the world is appallingly full of the terrible things humans do to one another. Stop ranking them, and insisting that rape is the only or most terrible thing. I'm someone who's experienced it, and I don't think it's the worst thing that could have happened to me.

..."you're ugly" to someone who had acid thrown in his/her face. At a bare minimum, by the ire of those around them who witness such an event.

And how far do you think free speech should be allowed to go? Should bullies be allowed to verbally attack someone until they commit suicide, as happens in some high schools? Gay kids should be attacked to the point that riots develop that end in murder of gays? In your opinion, is speech OK no matter what the results might be - even if people die?

And this is value for human life, and progressive values?

You didn't address my point, but never mind, I will address yours.

"And how far do you think free speech should be allowed to go? Should bullies be allowed to verbally attack someone until they commit suicide, as happens in some high schools?"

No. Schools should have both tough anti bullying policies and training to prevent prevent bullying. Hate speech that is an incitement to physical harm is a threat, and it's criminal already. That's as it should be.

Remember, this discussion arose out of your complaints about remarks made on DU, not about bullying in schools.

How on earth could anyone stop someone from yelling you're ugly to someone who had been disfigured in an attack or through torture? Presumably bystanders don't know how the person was disfigured, nor do they know someone is about to verbally accost this person. Are you suggesting that someone should be prosecuted for yelling you're ugly at a torture victim or victim of a domestic attack?
How about prosecuting someone for saying "there's no such thing as rape". In some European countries it's against the law to deny the holocaust. Thankfully, that's not true here.

Finally, you have a lot of nerve to question my values. And yes, you were. As it happens, I've always been a person who's spoken up for progressive values- and for the first amendment. Free speech is a progressive value.

No. We can't shut you up. You are entitled to post whatever you like. Your free speech is not harmed in anyway.

We are talking about what people should do verses what they should be allowed to do. Of course people should be allowed to post stupid bullshit (so long as they don't run afoul of the forum guidelines). But it is my opinion and the opinion of others that people should chooose not to post stupid bullshit.

You and everybody here has the choice. You can be an insensitive lout if you want to. But it would be better of you, and others (including me at time) chose not to be.

Bryant

about rape? As it happens, with this Duke debacle, my sympathies lie with the young woman, but I really don't know enough to make a decision about guilt or innocence. I'll wait, thank you very much, until a jury renders a decision.

You're wrong that we were talking about what people should do versus what they are allowed to do. The thread that was deleted asked the mods to take action against comments that the poster found offensive.

Just because you weren't offended, doesn't mean others aren't. Why do only YOUR rights matter here?

The point I was making about Admin action is that victims who DON'T want to view these things are forced to actually read them before they can opt out, raising the potential of injury for some victims, therefore requiring more moderator action to assist them.

Why is that an issue for you?

I said I have no right not to be offended. I find some of the misogynistic posts offensive, but just because there are a few idiots making repulsive remarks doesn't mean that I have to overreact. I trust the mods to discern what counts as sexism and what doesn't. I know they're not perfect and mistakes will be made, but I can live with that. And it's an issue for me because I don't like cyber nannies.

...needlessly.

What can the moderators do to prevent that from happening, short of bannings of people who break the rules? But one has to assume they would do this any way.

Are you arguing that the banning procedures should be more sensitive, i.e. people who post insensitively about rape should be banned more regularly?

I don't think DU has the resources to become a completely moderated forum (i.e. each time we post, a moderator reads our post before it makes it to the board and vets out any offending posts).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Moderator balance is a tricky issue - because the moderators decide what is balance and there's not much recourse, once they've made their call.

...attacked the other poster. WRT whether she actually did or not - I donno. I didn't find out about it until after the fact.

So you don't agree - this has gone on for thread after thread after thread.

Look, you both experienced a rape. You both handled it differently. You both are human.

Is it worth this? Is it?

is not considered in the same light as a proximate cause of physical damage. Why do you think the nazis are allowed to march in Skokie? Or Fred Phelps is allowed to demonstrate at Funerals? Or the KKK?

Your philosophy is dangerous and unconstitutional. You're just wrong.

...deserve to live is still child abuse, and a crime.

Nor is broadcast television allowed to disturb viewers with the most vile crap.

what we're discussing, which is the right of posters on DU to exercise free speech within the boundries drawn by the owners and moderators. What I said is accurate. Again, the best way to counter offensive speech is more speech, not shutting down the dialogue.

...be completely free, because it can have very negative results.

The notion that the world must conform to the sensitivities of the most sensitive ON ANY ISSUE is simply not an American ideal.

The right to speak freely is not trumped by an individual's desire not to hear those words.

everybody wants the rights of citizenship...but no one wants to take any responsibility. It is what I consider THE major problem with our society.

Maybe insensitive comments somehow give "anti-pc" street-cred, but maybe it's also a pathetic plea for attention.

What is so wrong with letting the legal system (such as it is) sort this one out?

Obviously, none of us knows what injuries led the DA to believe anyone was raped or what the dynamics of the particular situation were or what a tox screen showed in either the victim or the perpetrators. The JURY will get that information and it's their job to decide this stuff.

too many posters have been discussing this case and basically claiming not only that this woman lied...but that a majority of women who claim rape are lying about it. Considering the staggering statistics on rape there are a large number of women on this board (and some men) who have been raped...and to them it feels like a slap in the face to assert that rape 'victims' lie all the time.

rape victims are liars can you show us a link to that discussion?

all the nonsense that has been posted on this topic just to find you a link. But if you've been reading it it has been hard to miss the people claiming that a large percentage of rape claims are false. I know it's an obnoxious and very loud minority that are making this conversation difficult, but they're making DU a pretty inhospitable place at the moment.

Duke rape case and I have not seen one single post that anyone said most rape victims are liars. I have seen several posts that are directed to those of us who are choosing to wait till more evidence is given before we go rushing any judgements on the subject and I have seen many of us get bashed for having that opinion on the situation. I think if your going to accuse fellow DU'rs of these kind of postings you should at least back it up.

...of reveling in their victimhood (aka faking trauma). I have the cretin on ignore, so scroll through to find the post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x970283

Which is what was being claimed above, without any substantiation or any willingness to substantiate. And for what its worth, I thought the poster who suggested that "many abused people get addicted to the tea and sympathy that comes with being a victim" is full of shit, but I would defend that poster's right to say what they think. The responses to that post were compelling testimony to the falsehood of that statement, which is the way free speech is supposed to work.

onenote

That's not a majority, but it's a high enough percentage to be damaging if people were gullible enough to believe it. I can link to a post that makes that very claim.

edited subject line for clarity.

But, its not like the poster just picked that number out of thin air. Its based on a study that has been reported in the press. I haven't read the study and I'm extremely skeptical of it. But it hardly makes the poster who cited it a demon or representative of most posters here on DU. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/08/01/EDGIJ7OQKS1.DTL

onenote

he said it was a small sample and should not be extrapolated to areas of larger population (i.e. cities)

INformation is presented, considered,and sometimes rebutted.

onenote

he loves to say that, but it's not true

huge difference in those two

and the dangers of extrapolating from his study to any more general conclusions.

onenote

... one expects from a professional.

Saying "this may not apply to other regions," doesn't mean the work is repudiated or that the premise doesn't apply to other regions. It merely means he cautions it doesn't prove that.

When his work is taken with that of others, it's fair to the say the 2% number is a myth, and by any standard, false reports are far beyond that.

What obligation do those that speak have toward others? None at all - even if it kills someone? Gay bashing is OK, even if it causes gay people to be killed? Inciting riots is OK? Where is the line on this?

The number 25-40% has been thrown around (whatever), and links to RW sites posted to show how women lie about this.

maybe it would be best if you stopped clicking on these threads.

Your insults towards other posters have been chronic, on every thread, as if your personal experience somehow gives you license to act snotty towards anyone who doesn't give you a pass.

Most sources cite 2% (of course that's out of reported cases - not all rapes).

----------------------
In a nine-year study of all resolved rape cases in a Midwestern U.S. city of 70,000, the accusers recanted their charges 41 percent of the time. The 41 percent figure does not include the other accusations that the police department recorded as unfounded, for which there was insufficient evidence to establish the assault.(4)

A survey of all the forcible rape complaints during a three-year period at two large Midwestern state universities found that 50 percent of the accusations were false. At each university, the complaints and investigations were the responsibility of a ranking female officer, and no complaint was declared false unless there was a recantation by the accuser. Fifty-three percent of the accusations were motivated by a need for an alibi; revenge was the motive for 44 percent.(5)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=940974#941434

and if you see who else likes to quote these statistics (that he seemed to get from ) it's National Coalition of Free Men:

christianparty.net

falserape.net

His Side with Glenn Sacks

www.fathersforlife.org

--------

People ought to know that they are quoting freepers - plus he didn't want to say where he got it.

thank you for providing the link. But he is not the only one who has made some dumb comments about this.

People keep suggesting there's a group of posters claiming that a majority of rape claims are false. A link to exactly one such post has finally been provided. If there are more, it shouldn't be hard to find them and link them. There are plenty of posts that have suggested that the accuser in the Duke case may be lying, but as far as I can tell, those posts rely on the posters interpretation of the reoported information, their intuition, or god only knows what, but not on the claim that most rape claims are false.

onenote

As the other poster said, I'm not re-reading through a thousand disgusting posts to find your links. They are there. NONE of us are lying about this!

So there isn't any confusion as to where I stand, here is what I think -- feel free to challenge any of these statements with contrary evidence.

1. I question the reliability and accuracy of studies purporting to show that a majority or even a substantial minority of rape allegations are false. I believe the vast majority of such reports are in fact based on an actual assault.

2. On the other hand, false reports of rape do in fact sometimes happen.

3. In the Duke case the information that I have seen is not enough for me to reach any conclusion as to the truth or falsehood of any of the allegations made in this particular case by or on behalf either the accuser or the accused. If I was to rely simply on my belief as to the statistical frequency of false reports, I would have to believe the accuser has truthfully reported that she was assaulted, but that would not necessarily establish the truthfulness of her account of the circumstances surrounding the assault or the identity of those responsible. However, I believe it would be foolish to form an opinion based only on abstract statistics; rather, my position is based entirely on the the information I've seen regarding this particular case.

4. A not insignficant number of DUers have posted their opinion that the accuser is lying about whether she was assaulted and/or the circumstances of that assault. A not insignificant number of DUers have posted that they believe that her claim of being raped is truthful; a lesser, but still signficicant number of posters have indicated that they also believe that she is telling the truth about the circumstances of the assault and those responsible.

5. I believe the number of posters who have formed the opinion that the accuser is or may be lying based on their belief that most rape reports are false is de minimis. The overwhelming majority of posters who have rformed the opinion that accuser is or may be lying have indicated that their opninion is based on their interpretation of the information they have seen reported in this particular case.

But a couple of things: at least ShaneGR backed up his post with citations, which is more than can be said for the poster that claimed "too many" DUers were claiming that a majority of rape reports were false. At least you have provided a link to one such post, and maybe in some people's eyes, one such post "is too many" although it is pretty clear that the unsubstantiated post was suggesting that more than just one DUer had made such a claim. In any event, I'd rather have the claim, and the purported substantiation for it, cited than suppressed, since only by bringing it up can it be rebutted.

onenote

Notice that no argument is ever addressed sanely.

The sane person can understand that both these statements can be true:

1. Most rapes are not reported.
and
2. A significant minority of REPORTED rapes are false allegations.

There is a group here who don't want to address issues soundly. They live to create an imaginary straw man who is right out of fiction, then beat that straw man senseless.

There are among us a group who believe their role is to SHOUT DOWN any opposition. Ain't happenin'.

Kind of like suggestion that black people don't want to work - a blanket assumption that says more about the person making the assumption than it does about the actual facts.

Or, that's my take on it anyway.

Bryant

I don’t have a problem with them discussing the case as long as they are willing to discuss it objectively. But the minute you make a comment not supporting their side they immediately jump all over you claiming biased, freeper, or liar.

Yes it is a very emotional topic

When you have a situation where a woman was working as a sex performer, went to perform at a party where there were several college-age men who were drinking, and where she may have been drinking herself, then there's a lot of room for confusion, misunderstanding, miscommunication, honest mistakes, not-so-honest mistakes, stupidity and regret.

When it all gets sorted out, maybe somebody was raped, or maybe something more complicated and less easily defined happened. Human sexuality, even in the best of circumstances, can be a delicate passage to navigate. This is a situation where I don't think we should make assumptions about anybody's guilt. It will have to be carefully hashed out through the court system, as imperfect and perhaps unsatisfying a solution as that is.

I have NO compassion for anyone that can retain a “woody” while slapping, or choking some one into submission. Those are the folks I would like to see spending 10 -15 behind bars as I think they are dangerously sexually perverse.

It’s the things like non-violent marital rape I question seriously.

and the husband doesn't listen and she lies there and puts up with it to keep him from hurting her or not to have to listen to him nag her about it or even just to get it over with...that's no big deal. :eyes:

You would have a difficult time proving she said NO

Do you have a witness?

Now who you do you believe more, the man who says she said no such thing or the woman who says she said NO.

All men are bad and All women are good doesn’t work for me

This isn't a court of law here. We can't refuse to admit that this stuff happens. By insisting that it didn't happen just because there's no independent evidence means you've convicted the wife of being a liar, out of hand and with no evidence. You've made him innocent and her guilty.

That is why so few rapes get reported.

Rapes, even false accusations do get reported.

In fact I saw 1 study that claimed over 30% of all rape accusations are false.

As for the specific analogy we were discussing, I read a news story where a man was convicted for marital rape. His wife was having an affair with another man and accused him of mnarital rape. Yet he was prohibited by rape shield laws from presenting evidence of her adulterous affair.

The implications are obvious. She recieved all marital assets in the divorce.

have to do with the rape in question?

I can't comment on that one anecdone because I know nothing about it. But one case does not make a trend.

seems a little higher

working with survivors I'd say it's rediculously high.

I hope other people are peer-reviewing this to check his methods and biases.

There is of course additional well qualified research to support his findings. Over 40% does seem quite high, I'm more inclined to believe the over 30% number.

Do I need to post additional examples of research for you

Post more studies if you want. I'll check them out. But there is no way that the rate is anywhere near 30%. That's just not reality.

Like I said 30% is a very realistic number of false accusations of abuse.

I am all for punishing violent offenders of rape to the fullest extent of the law. But careful consideration is in order to determine violent offenders.

The Kanin study relied only upon allegations that were RECANTED by the accusers.

I don't know at point in the process you make contact with "survivors," but how do you know what has happened to those who have recanted?

Given how ugly rape trials turn out, in court and in the media, it's not a surprise that women would recant, once they see they're about to be metaphorically raped again by the system.

That happens even in the cases that seem cut and dry. Cases where a woman is gang-raped. They're still made out to be whores who asked for it, they realize they can't pursue the case unless they reveal to their parents that they are strippers. Recanting is NOT the same as making a false allegation; it often means a victim is finding the entire process too traumatic, and decide to opt out.

This is not about "human sexuality," it's about rape. Whomever the rapists are.

Not too much confusion about any sort of rape.

If there is any doubt about the crime, I believe that said doubt must be considered before reaching a verdict. It's the closest thing we've got to reasonably ensuring that the names of the innocent are cleared, and that the guilty can be punished without regrets later on.

I don't specifically direct that at rape, but at any crime. Please don't take it as some sort of personal assault on anyone.

Is prosecutors have to establish that a crime has been committed AND they have to establish who did it.

I don't know if people don't understand that and think once there is a trial that that is just assumed or what.

So I don't get why it's so important for people to insist that there wasn't a rape when they don't know that - and when it's going to have to be proven anyway.

But neither do I wish to assume that there *was* one without first knowing all of the facts, which is information only people directly involved with the case are privy to at this time. It's very important that everyone has a fair trial, accuser and accused alike, before they are presented to the public as the guilty party.

I guess you'd call my position one of neutrality, which I believe is as it should be until such time the jury's verdict has been announced and all the details are released to us.

would make a false allegation in a heartbeat, for some very petty reasons. I’ve seen it happen.

Barring some supporting physical evidence, and not necessarily DNA, but something, anything, I have to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused.

People do make false accusations unfortunately.

But very few people will face hostile police officers, dismissive prosecutors, and the entire daunting legal system to file a false rape charge. it's too much work and too much harassment just to slander someone. Everyone knows that it's the woman who ends up on trial.

Women who go through all the torment to file charges are almost always being honest. And they suffer for their honesty, often comparing it to being raped all over again.

You should try to recognize the difference between trash talk and actually filing charges.

I think that is pretty important to consider when you are talking about rape.

Also this is even more interesting



Perhaps the DA should have let the Duke Lacross Team submit to Lie Detector test, because YES the whole team offered to undergo Lie dectector test when the complaint first emerged

They'll keep saying "the FBI says 2% ..."

Know why? They're quoting a 30 year old book that pulled that number out of someone's ass. And it got repeated a million times by people who wanted to foreclose any real analysis of the problem of false allegations of rape.

Most rapes are not reported, and most rapes that are reported occurred, but many rapes that are reported did not occur, OR, did not involve the accused.

As much as I don't like the idea of rape victims feeling hurt by a few thoughtless posters, I fear thought-police on DU even more.

I wonder if psychologist can submit a new personality disorder

Maybe you can get a Syndrome or even a Condition named in your honor.

Bryant

and some people "get off" on causing it.

I'm just commenting on the obvious

Your intentions were qualified by taking a position towards whom you preferred to believe.

It is ok to feel an issue is unresolved, but you equally re-ignited the debate that was locked by taking a position in the former debate.

<<< The post suggested we should be more sensitive about the subject of Rape

I personally find the victim's story more likely to be accurate than the lacross team's story

But it seems a common experience that rape victims are disbelieved >>>

If indeed you wanted to frame the debate in an unbiased method you would not have taken a position and asked the posters of the thread as well. It is simply not a tool for analytical thought

That's a lot less than your sinister hints suggested. Perhaps you chickend out when confronted (after all your comment "who started the thread. I'm just commenting on the obvious." makes very little sense when lined up against this answer).

I guess, though, it's probably better to take you at your word.

This wasn't a debate about the facts in any particular case, or at least I didn't pose my question in that way. It was a question about how one should debate these tricky issues. Knowing I would be participating in the debate, I wanted to get my biases out on the table, rather than trying to hide them or cover them up, as you suggest I do. I prefer to be direct (although I admit I don't always live up to this).

If you feel my intent was to create a passionate debate, you're right. But I fail to understand what exactly is wrong with that or why I should be ashamed for doing so.

Agreed and the issue is one that is going to generate a lot of emotional response. However I don’t believe emotional response creates objective thought.

<< Can expressing disbelief in the presumed rape victim in the Duke case can bring back bad memories for those who have experience rape and that disbelieve first hand? >>

Instead of framing the question in that means, why not some thing like this

“Can we better prevent rape victims being smeared in the media by making both the alleged perpetrator and victim’s names in the media subject to Rape Shield Laws, and not disclose either of them”

Just a thought

And NO I did not chicken out of any thing.

BTW: just how am I to perceive “That's a lot less than your sinister hints suggested”

I assume that means you have some negative opinion of me that you believe is common knowledge.

That's what I mean by sinister hints.

In other words it's attacking my post by attacking me - that sort of argument only works if you assume some negative opinion of me.

We become a stand-in for the person to whom they wish they had addressed their anger earlier in life. It's fair to say some are stuck in a loop of anger and argumentation with surrogates for the object of their anger.

It is an interesting supposition that those who raise controversial issues are doing so out of anger. Presumably the most well-adjusted among us are content to post solely on issues that everybody agrees with.

Sometimes when I read responses, I wonder what post they must have been reading when they wrote it, and yours is one of those.

I post my initial post.

Freakin DJ posts that I "get off" on justifiable anger

You post that you agree with him, and that I am guilty of acting out and projecting.

I assume you must have been offended by my original post.

I'm sorry if I mistook your meaning.

I was merely addressing the general sentiment that there is an element among us of those who feel that "justifiable anger" overrides open and free discussion.

I didn't have you in mind, but I see why you thought I might.

I try to focus on the comment, not its source, so I don't attach thoughts to names unless there is great repetition.

You don't have to believe it, but why libel a victim on a website - discouraging others from coming forward because they have to deal with officious pseudo-Sherlocks.

People rarely lie about rape.

It doesn't convict anyone to be supportive of a victim. It also doesn't hurt a victim to be generally supportive of the accused. (such as family members). But it does severely insult victims, women, and society to cast aspersions on victims of rape.

So I don't think it's hateful to say that you're suspicious, but some people's efforts to belittle the victims are truly disturbing. Rape victims are not celebrities that put themselves in the public eye. It is not appropriate to spread rumors and innuendos.

that anyone who is dismissing her story is full of shit. I don't think anyone (outside of a few people in NC) knows enough to know whether it should be dismissed.

I think it is possible that there won't be enough evidence to convict anyone.


And I suppose that being a former victim of rape and being a female in this society - where I am all too aware of misogyny against women - does affect how I think and feel about this issue and other rape cases that the media wishes to dismiss, downplay, and undermine.


And I am even more incensed when I see what is written by Freepers and Savage. And how they gleefully do whatever they can to discredit the victim.

when someone reports a rape and is not believed it's called secondary wounding.

The rape is the trauma itself, trusting law enforcement enough to tell them something so humiliating is similarly traumatic. Initially guilt kicks in (my belief is that it's a defense mechanism that actually works in its own warped way).But putting that aside and summoning the courage to report it anyway and then being disbelieved actually causes further emotional damage. Secondary wounding.

So, when any other woman is disbelieved, a person who suffered that secondary wounding gets another dent in the psyche.

It's my own fault for ever reading a rape thread around here again since the Kobe Bryant debacle, but I always hope to shed light on the matter. It never happens.

FWIW, I don't know what happened but the truth will come out. It's not those defending the lacrosse players that are bothersome, it's some of the reasons they give why they defend them. It reinforces all the myths that women are responsible for their victimization.

Thank you, bryant and thank you, FormerRepublican. I tried to thank you in your earlier thread but it was locked before I could respond.

I would say it's worse than insensitive, but like others have said, there's no law against being an asshole. As a survivor I've had to grow thicker skin but hearing people outright dispute this woman because of what she does or some of the other things I've read, is rather daunting and emotionally painful.

I didn't realize there was a proper name for that. :(

claims and the automatic disbelief of anybody who doesn't pass the "purity test" that makes rape such an underreported crime. Knowing what I know now I would do the same thing all over again, I just wish that the stereotypes and the myths could be eliminated so more women would report their assaults and be believed by the people that matter. The problem is that the knuckledraggers keep the stigma and hostility against rape victims in the forefront of the discussion and many women don't come forward for that very reason.

There was an investigation in this case and something rang true to the police. I'm not making any assumptions about the validity of either the victim's or defendants' claim of truth until there's a trial and we hear all the pertinent details. May the truth prevail.

it's his word against hers....in this case "their" word against hers. It is never wrong to question whether an event happened and whether we have sufficient info to judge if it did. It is wrong to assume it did or did NOT happen.

The problem is with INFOTAINMENT which seems to poison public opinion with conjecture and poison the jury pool and the public.

Since this is a debate site, of course we are going to place our own spins on what we perceive from what we've observed. That is fine. The posts that are conclusionary either way are abit distressing and as DU has grown, the level of intelligent discourse has grown exponentially, but then again, so has the level of ignorant discourse...gotta take the good with the bad :shrug:

this is a divisive issue promoted by moles to distract us and divide our community.

ENOUGH FOR yAHWEH'S SAKE!

There are some people who will find almost anything said on DU as being insensitive.

I've also noticed that there are a handful of people here on DU who will show up in every thread that might be of sensitive nature and attack. I think that might be all they do here.

There are a hell of a lot of different people in this place and I find it laughable to think that everyone is going to think exactly alike. The whole "And I thought I was on a progressive site" meme is getting really old. People have to be aware that not everyone who logs in to DU is going to be your clone. The majority of the people I see here seem reasonable enough to understand this, but as I said, there are some people who just don't understand that concept.

with some of these posters. The SANE's exam showed medical evidence consistent with rape. So... regardless of anything else, she was raped. You can say maybe she misidentified someone, but accusing her of false accusations is what's driving us boinkers...

The original police report states she reported $2000 was stolen from her

of rape what's the point of a trial then?:sarcasm:

You're reading into this what you want and trying to push your own ideas and agenda.

"Yes".

Suggesting to a person who has been raped that s/he might not have been raped is, in my opinion, beyond cruel and heartless.

I mean in casual discussion about a rape case (like the one at Duke). I would hope that if someone posted here "I just got raped" nobody would accuse her of lying (I might be disappointed in that hope though).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Especially with the lack any DNA from any of the players on her, in spite of the DA's confidence that there would be DNA evidence.

Just because there's no semen doesn't disprove rape.
There are other signs of nonconsensual sex, such as a bruised cervix, etc.

Ultimately, it's not up to the public to decide whether rape occurred in any particular case, and it really isn't our business to decide. The medical examiners, and other health professionals, are the ones who decide whether physical evidence indicates rape.

One group of experts will say she showed signs of rape. One group will say she shows signs of having had consensual sex, or that she didn't have injuries, or that they appear to have been caused by some object. The jury will believe whichever side it wants to, and the experts who testify on that point won't decide the case. The case will be decided on the facts as shown in the various timeline items and the LACK of DNA evidence from them on her. Most rational jurors are not going believe the story could be as she told it, and still leave no player DNA.

The DA is one who told the magistrate he felt getting the DNA would exonerate the innocent and identify the guilty. That can only mean he expected to find their DNA on her.

Someone else may have raped her. There was DNA taken from her, but they don't know whose it is, they just know it's not the players.

In a case like this one, where the only evidence known so far gives both sides reason to believe in their side, there is nothing wrong with questioning it. It might be insensitive in the context of a case where to all but the ignorant it is obvious the rape occurred, and yet some are diminishing the woman's claims anyway just due to macho ego or something, but I don't think that applies here. I can't find any reason whatsoever to firmly believe in either side of this accusation so far because there is definitely not enough evidence yet to make a decision. But in cases like this that are still wide open, it isn't insensitive to question the allegation, it is merely being responsible.

As a last note, I agree with you completely on the 'filthy vs her story doesnt check etc' comparison. Problem is, even though the former is so much more severe than the latter, some of the extremists actually respond with equal rage to both statements. Kinda weird.

In any case, I agree, this Duke case definitely causes some complexities.

Otherwise, why bother with a trial?