[Puffer Fish]

In a growing number of cases these days, men are being convicted of rape, based only on a woman's accusations - no other evidence - even though there is 100% proof that the woman was preparing to and had the intention to have sex with that man.

In the Mike Tyson case, the judge even prevented the jury from hearing about the fact that the alleged rape victim was sitting in Tyson's lap and had her thighs wrapped around him, shortly before she entered the bedroom with him. The judge considered this fact "irrelevant" to the case, thinking it might "prejudice" the jury.
(more about that case in this thread: "Judges deciding what is "relevant", excluding evidence from trial" viewtopic.php?f=51&t=183255 )

The logic there is that, yes, she might have displayed clear signs that she was going to have sex with him, but a woman can still change her mind at any point, and that does not mean that she was not raped.

In my opinion, if there is clear evidence the woman was preparing to have sex with the man, that should drastically reduce the amount of punishment -- if any -- the accused man should get.

Yes, of course it is possible that she still could have been raped, but this does 2 things. First, I think, when there is a rape accusation, and no other corroborating evidence, the fact that she seemed like she was going to have sex with him reduces the likelihood that the allegations are true. I think if the chance the accused might be innocent is greater, they should get much less punishment, even though it might be appropriate to still punish them.
Second, I would argue that if a woman were planning to have sex with a man, even though she changed her mind later, it suggests that the violation to her is less. This was a man she was seriously considering having sex with. It should result in less punishment.
If we don't take this evidence into account, what other evidence realistically could a man use to defend himself against a false rape accusation? There is pretty much none. That wouldn't be fair to the man and would be one-sided.

Imagine a woman accuses a man of rape BUT there is security video camera evidence of the woman leading the man into the bedroom, with her arms wrapped around him flirtatiously. She also met him on an internet site where people hook-up for casual sex. The two even exchanged nude pictures of each other, and the woman sent him messages talking about sexually dirty things. Should all that be seen as completely irrelevant?

Some people in modern times think it should not matter, that it should not make any difference in a rape case. Maybe some of them even think the jury should not be allowed to hear about it.
But I think this view is absurd.

In older times (say, the 1950s, maybe even up to the 1980s in many places) there was no way anyone on a jury was going to convict a man if they knew the woman entered the bedroom to sleep with the man. "What type of woman does that?"

I think conservatives are more likely to take these sorts of facts/evidence into account, whereas progressive feminists (most of the Left) are more likely to view it as completely irrelevant.

[Puffer Fish]

Look, it's one thing if we, as a society, have decided that we are willing to put a man in prison (for a long time) based only on the accusation of a woman when there is no evidence. That may be acceptable even though it is problematic.

It's another thing when we have evidence that the woman was going to have sex with him but we are still willing to put the man in prison based on her accusation.

Those two are not exactly the same thing. The second is taking things to another level.

I'm just saying, it gets more difficult to believe her when there is evidence she wanted sex. It is ultimately a "he said, she said" situation.


Just because evidence that she wanted sex at one point does not mean she wasn't raped doesn't mean that is not evidence about the likelihood of whether she was.

Some people may be mistakenly thinking I am saying that a woman has no right to change her mind. That is not the principle of what I am saying. If we had, for example, security video camera evidence that the woman was trying to push the man off her before the sexual act actually began (a hypothetical but unlikely scenario), then yes the man should be convicted of rape.

[late]

Look, it's one thing if we, as a society, have decided that we are willing to put a man in prison (for a long time) based only on the accusation of a woman when there is no evidence. That may be acceptable even though it is problematic.

It's another thing when we have evidence that the woman was going to have sex with him but we are still willing to put the man in prison based on her accusation.

Those two are not exactly the same thing. The second is taking things to another level.

I'm just saying, it gets more difficult to believe her when there is evidence she wanted sex. It is ultimately a "he said, she said" situation.


Just because evidence that she wanted sex at one point does not mean she wasn't raped doesn't mean that is not evidence about the likelihood of whether she was.

Some people may be mistakenly thinking I am saying that a woman has no right to change her mind. That is not the principle of what I am saying. If we had, for example, security video camera evidence that the woman was trying to push the man off her before the sexual act actually began (a hypothetical but unlikely scenario), then yes the man should be convicted of rape.

So we should have multiple cameras recording every sexual interaction...

[Puffer Fish]

So we should have multiple cameras recording every sexual interaction...

Unfortunately it is illegal, in most jurisdictions, for the man to use a secret camera to record the woman having sex with him. And most women would probably never consent to it.

Because it is illegal, many judges would probably exclude the evidence from the courtroom as well.
If the prosecutor still wanted to go ahead with the charges, the jury would not be permitted to know about the video when coming to their decision.

According to many of those on the Left, even if the woman signed a consent form, logically that too would still be irrelevant. Because "a woman can always change her mind".

[Puffer Fish]

How about if a man has any suspicions after sex that this woman might falsely accuse him of rape, he should race to police and accuse her of rape before she can accuse him.
Or can the man accuse her of rape after she's accused him? (I suspect not, probably double standards for different genders come into play)

Many men get wrongfully accused of rape when they have sex with a woman and then afterwards don't call her back.
She feels taken advantage of, like she was "violated". This is especially the case when the woman wasn't all that keen about having sex in the first place, or something went wrong and it was painful or unpleasant for her. And women can have something financially to gain by accusing him, in some situations, if it's a rich celebrity, or the man is her partner and she wants to take over their shared home to be with some other man.

[late]

Unfortunately it is illegal, in most jurisdictions, for the man to use a secret camera to record the woman having sex with him. And most women would probably never consent to it.

Because it is illegal, many judges would probably exclude the evidence from the courtroom as well.
If the prosecutor still wanted to go ahead with the charges, the jury would not be permitted to know about the video when coming to their decision.

According to many of those on the Left, even if the woman signed a consent form, logically that too would still be irrelevant. Because "a woman can always change her mind".

If it was legally mandated, it would not exactly be a secret...

[Politics_Observer]

There was a case where a man legally and secretly recorded a conversation with a woman, given the state's laws here in the United States where the conversation took place. She explicitly consented to sex in the secret recording. They had sex. Later, she did, in fact, falsely accuse the man of rape. So, the police arrested him and brought him in for questioning and the guy was laughing at the police. The police were mad and puzzled at why this guy seemed so calm with such a serious accusation made, especially since he was arrested for it.

However, he had a secret recording that the woman knew nothing about, which was legal because she conversed with him when she consented to sex. The police and society were sure the man was guilty, but they had to drop the charges because he had evidence proving he was innocent.

The guy was like, "Ohh wait, I get it, rich girl and a poor guy, and I take the fall, right?" to the police. The police didn't like the guy because I think they felt sure he was guilty, only to be proven wrong with court-admissible evidence directly proving his innocence and proving the woman made false accusations of rape. The police even said he would have been convicted of rape if he didn't have that secret recording.

Such false accusations do happen, and some guys have sued women over such false accusations successfully. In some states, it is legal to secretly record (this is not video recording I am talking about here) anybody conversing directly with you without their permission or knowledge that they are being recorded. In other states, you must first gain explicit permission that the person gives permission to be recorded before it is legally admissible in court.

[Puffer Fish]

There was a case where a man legally and secretly recorded a conversation with a woman, She explicitly consented to sex in the secret recording.
The police didn't like the guy because I think they felt sure he was guilty, only to be proven wrong with court-admissible evidence directly proving his innocence and proving the woman made false accusations of rape. The police even said he would have been convicted of rape if he didn't have that secret recording.

But wait... according to Progressive Feminists, it's never too late for a woman to change her mind.
That recording of her saying "yes" would not necessarily prove she wasn't raped. She could have said yes and then changed her mind later.

I think what some of this evidence can do is catch the woman in a lie, however. Police will ask the woman about what happened, the exact details of everything leading up to the alleged rape, and then if evidence contradicts her description of what happened, it will be an indicator that she lied. And if she lied about that, there's a good chance she could be lying about the rape having happened as well. (That's just common sense)

Now I suppose if a malevolent woman were really clever she could tell police that she expressed romantic affection to that man and entered the bedroom with him, but then that at that point she didn't want to have sex and he forced her. Then there would be no way for the man to disprove it. Fortunately most women trying to get a man falsely accused of rape do not think like this.


Okay but here's another hypothetical to think about. Imagine for some reason the prosecutor did still want to prosecute, even knowing about the existence of the tape. In many places there exist laws that make recording without consent illegal. If it went to court, it is likely that the judge would deem that evidence as inadmissible, refuse to consider it, refuse to let any jury hear it.

The judge could even have TWO grounds to ban the evidence, both because the evidence was obtained illegally, and because the judge could consider it "irrelevant and prejudicial to the jury".
Oftentimes there is no specific law that says a court cannot consider illegally obtained evidence but despite this many judges still refuse to allow that evidence in their courtroom.

As to why a prosecutor might still choose to go ahead with the criminal charges even knowing about the tape, there are several possible reasons, though two stand out. Evidence is still not proof, and maybe even with existence of the tape there is still some reason why the prosecutor believes the man could be guilty. And if a prosecutor wants to go after someone with criminal charges, they will usually use any strategy to win. They will only inform the jury of what they have to. It might also be possible that during a search warrant connected to the rape investigation, police discovered something else illegal, like drugs, and the prosecutor wants to go after the man for that. So they still decide to charge the man with rape (even knowing there is a good chance he might not truly be guilty of that) in order to pressure him into agreeing to plead guilty to the other criminal charges, or even just to make sure he gets punished for something else. If a prosecutor wants to punish a man for some other reason, and this man might have committed a rape, all the more reason to go after him and try to make sure he faces punishment. What the criminal charges say does not always accurately or exactly reflect the true reasons for the punishment.

And even if the man did have a tape he tried to show the court to prove his innocence, it is still possible the man could still end up convicted of the rape and also convicted for making an illegal recording. It's possible the tape might just result in him getting even more prison time, that is a possibility.

So there are lots of problems that could be possible here. And hopefully this is not all too complicated for you all to understand.

[Pants-of-dog]

There was a case where a man legally and secretly recorded a conversation with a woman, given the state's laws here in the United States where the conversation took place. She explicitly consented to sex in the secret recording. They had sex. Later, she did, in fact, falsely accuse the man of rape. So, the police arrested him and brought him in for questioning and the guy was laughing at the police. The police were mad and puzzled at why this guy seemed so calm with such a serious accusation made, especially since he was arrested for it.

However, he had a secret recording that the woman knew nothing about, which was legal because she conversed with him when she consented to sex. The police and society were sure the man was guilty, but they had to drop the charges because he had evidence proving he was innocent.

The guy was like, "Ohh wait, I get it, rich girl and a poor guy, and I take the fall, right?" to the police. The police didn't like the guy because I think they felt sure he was guilty, only to be proven wrong with court-admissible evidence directly proving his innocence and proving the woman made false accusations of rape. The police even said he would have been convicted of rape if he didn't have that secret recording.

Such false accusations do happen, and some guys have sued women over such false accusations successfully. In some states, it is legal to secretly record (this is not video recording I am talking about here) anybody conversing directly with you without their permission or knowledge that they are being recorded. In other states, you must first gain explicit permission that the person gives permission to be recorded before it is legally admissible in court.

Do you believe this story?

[late]

Do you believe this story?

Tricky, isn't it?

We've gone past the limit of the law, or to put it differently, what we can know with certainty.

Let's assume there is such a case, for a moment. It is entirely possible that the guy made the recording because he planned on getting violent.

To make matters worse, a woman will often get severe PTSD from rape. Which will prevent her from dealing with the situation.

I don't have an answer. We have conflicting imperatives, and I don't see a way to resolve them.

[Wellsy]

Beating a dead horse at this points with all these threads. Maybe we need a mega rape case thread.

[Politics_Observer]

@Pants-of-dog @late @Puffer Fish

It was some shady stuff this guy and woman were involved with. The story is true, but I don't have proof of the story to post up, mainly because I saw it so long ago on a crime TV show. But it certainly looked like a real case that happened. The guy ended up being charged with a different crime and going to jail.

He deserved to go to jail, though, for some of the shady stuff he was involved in though he did not commit the crime of rape. The cops were undoubtedly trying to get him on rape charges too.

But if he were never involved in other shady dealings, he would have never been falsely accused in the first place, and it ultimately didn't save him from being charged with other crimes and convicted. This was the reason why the cops didn't like him. Regardless, he was an actual criminal and deserved what he got in the end.

[Tainari88]

When you got to record a woman you plan to have future sex with to make sure you got consent? Why in the hell are you going to sleep with her in the first place eh?

If you had a good time and she did too? Why worry about rape charges. The men that worry about rape charges must know....they really are terrible with women. LOL.

[Puffer Fish]

If you had a good time and she did too? Why worry about rape charges. The men that worry about rape charges must know....they really are terrible with women. LOL.

That question has already been answered in this thread.
Here, let me repeat it for you:

"Many men get wrongfully accused of rape when they have sex with a woman and then afterwards don't call her back.
She feels taken advantage of, like she was "violated". This is especially the case when the woman wasn't all that keen about having sex in the first place, or something went wrong and it was painful or unpleasant for her. And women can have something financially to gain by accusing him, in some situations, if it's a rich celebrity, or the man is her partner and she wants to take over their shared home to be with some other man."

[Wellsy]

So somehow a regrettable or at least shitty sexual encounter is somehow motivating women to make false rape accusations?

And how many rape cases are made in terms of civil lawsuits thus requiring a lower level of proof because instead of jail one gets financially compensated. And such a route itself has concerns of how people perceive the pursuit of a financial compensation for such an act.

Usually false rape accusations when they aren’t from a clearly unstable person have motive which saying rape helps hide something else or in some cases is parents over riding their faughters consent to s newr aged boyfriend. Women often experience less than stellar sex, I don’t see from that alone an immediate willingness to maliciously accuse someone of rape to great monetary expense and effort.

This really is the dumbest of shit on this website and at this point isn’t a discussion about legal precedents, practices and so on as kuch as your suspicions about women and a anxiety around false rape accusations which very few men worry about or fixate on to a large extent. It takes on a pathological character even of some of your points can be taken as reasonable or made so.

[wat0n]

OTOH, false accusations of rape were very common in the late 19th century to justify lynchings of nonwhites. I do agree though there is a weird insistence on this topic lately.

[Tainari88]

So somehow a regrettable or at least shitty sexual encounter is somehow motivating women to make false rape accusations?

And how many rape cases are made in terms of civil lawsuits thus requiring a lower level of proof because instead of jail one gets financially compensated. And such a route itself has concerns of how people perceive the pursuit of a financial compensation for such an act.

Usually false rape accusations when they aren’t from a clearly unstable person have motive which saying rape helps hide something else or in some cases is parents over riding their faughters consent to s newr aged boyfriend. Women often experience less than stellar sex, I don’t see from that alone an immediate willingness to maliciously accuse someone of rape to great monetary expense and effort.

This really is the dumbest of shit on this website and at this point isn’t a discussion about legal precedents, practices and so on as kuch as your suspicions about women and a anxiety around false rape accusations which very few men worry about or fixate on to a large extent. It takes on a pathological character even of some of your points can be taken as reasonable or made so.

I can't speak for all women Wellsy. I can only speak for myself. There are men who are the most stupid, selfish fucking bastards in the world. In bed and out of bed. I am sure there are some who piss off their girlfriends. But in the end accusing someone of raping you and going to the authorities just so you can do what? It is rare. Most women would rather take a hot shower and go to sleep and never call the bastard ever again.

I think it is shameful that a man does not have any kind of confidence in his ability to arouse a woman who likes him or loves him and is attracted to him sexually and has to resort to recordings and bullshit to protect himself from what? A woman's deception?

Lol. What a loser!

Ok, Wellsy let us be honest here....women are the ones making decisions about sex mostly. Not the men. Men hope to get some kind of signal about consent from the wife or the girlfriend. And men also feel pressure too. They can't hide arousal states all that well. Women can fake it or deny something or do what women who are bored in the bedroom do. They start thinking, when is this shit gonna be done and over with....it is not doing a thing for me. Lol.

They might not feel much for the dude...but not feeling much and yelling rape to the cops are two different issues.

The truth is that women are the ones who decide when or how they will engage in sexual relations in healthy relationships with their lovers that are men. Most men if they don't like that woman at all sexually won't be even noticing much about her. They ignore her. And move on. No one obligates sex in regular sexual relationships. Prostitution is something different. Those are sex workers. If you talk to them they are all psychologically checked out of any kind of real feelings. They are in a business transaction and they do a job and get paid. It has nothing to do with consent. Consent and mutual love or just raw sexuality is something that has to do with some kind of emotional or mental connection with the other party.

It is a physical need and an instinct. Women are sensitive to rejection just like men are. Both are vulnerable in that situation. Trying to manipulate and lie and record or play games is not a turn on for most women or men either. It is a big pain in the neck.

Puffer Fish is harping on this weird theme for a long time. I am thinking he is some kind of dude that has rape fantasies about women because he does not know how to have decent sex with ANYONE.

Get some therapy then. Find out what the hang up is about.

Women have a right to have satisfying sex. So do men. And that only happens when people know how to communicate, how to be vulnerable, emotional, and full of caring. And can be intimate with some real emotional content. No one wants some half hearted romantic involvement.

Who is this Puffer Fish? A macho man without any real intelligence.....LOL.

[ThirdTerm]

"Many men get wrongfully accused of rape when they have sex with a woman and then afterwards don't call her back.
She feels taken advantage of, like she was "violated". This is especially the case when the woman wasn't all that keen about having sex in the first place, or something went wrong and it was painful or unpleasant for her. And women can have something financially to gain by accusing him, in some situations, if it's a rich celebrity, or the man is her partner and she wants to take over their shared home to be with some other man."

She checked into the emergency room of the hospital and she was examined by the physician for over 24 hours after the incident, who later confirmed that the physical condition of her genitals was consistent with rape. The victim and Tyson may have been in a relationship for a while but given the weight of evidence, the former model was actually raped. The Los Angeles Times also reported that the victim punched the heavyweight champion to defend herself in vain. Tyson’s chauffeur, Virginia Foster, corroborated her testimony.

[Puffer Fish]

So somehow a regrettable or at least shitty sexual encounter is somehow motivating women to make false rape accusations?

Yes.

Like I try to tell people all the time, just because it sounds insane doesn't mean it's not a real problem that exists.

In fact the latest "affirmative consent" laws just make it even easier for a woman to claim "rape" if she did not like the sexual experience after-the-fact.

It's more common than you are aware. I was in a different forum and there was a now-retired police officer there who had a couple of stories like this, women trying to make police reports that caused the police officer listening to her to look at her dumbfounded or roll his eyes. She "felt" raped.


There are fundamental differences between men and women (biological and mental). I think it's very hard for most men to be able to imagine why anyone would try to claim rape or feel raped if they didn't tell the other person to stop before or during the sexual encounter.

To try to explain it very simply, the experience is not what the woman expected, either the physical experience, or the emotional-relationship context attached to the sexual encounter (i.e. if the man pumps and dumps her, and was just faking everything to be able to get into her pants and then he's off, never to be seen again). Sometimes the female might not have been very eager or enthusiastic about the sex to begin with and afterwards she has regrets, realises she had been pressured.

If you remember the Julian Assange case, the two Swedish women were both sleeping with him but didn't realise he had been sleeping with both of them until later, and became very angry about it. They would have never slept with him they had known, so when a [feminist female] prosecutor told them their country's law could allow them to claim rape, they jumped aboard that wagon. (They had already gone to the police station together to try to see if they could require Assange to submit to an STD test, since he had already left the country by that time)

[XogGyux]

Why is this guy so obsessed with rape. Someone has a foking kinky fetish.