The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
I'm sorry some of you are unable to keep a rational and open mind when being told something and automatically have emotional responses. I however don't.
I'm admiring the craft on this one. It's absolutely impossible to tell if this is a pinnacle of silly goosery or a complete troll.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
If you think someone close to you may be capable of falsely accusing others of rape, you shouldn't be close to them.
Maybe the difficulty is with understanding the concept of having somebody "close to you". I don't mean that in a snotty way; we've already had one poster state that he doesn't enter into relationships because of an inability to have a normal level of trust and suspension of disbelief.
HushLittleBaby is not giving advice to police officers or district attorneys. S/he's talking about when somebody close to you says "I was raped." Do you or do you not know this person well enough to tell whether they are the kind of person who would deliberately lie about such a thing?
Reflexive skepticism and a refusal to say "I believe you" is not an expression of principle. It is a statement that you either believe this person capable of deliberately lying to your face and falsely accusing another, OR you don't know this person well enough to be able to judge their character.
Like I said anytime anyone says anything to me I approach it with rational thought.
It is a sad thing that a thread with such good, positive intentions had to turn into ridiculousness.
On topic but maybe more in line with the original intent of the thread:
I had a friend in high school who had been open with me about her belief that she may have been abused. She described it as though it had been a repressed memory. I have enormous doubts about repressed memory and in my foolish adolescence told her so. To this day I think it was perhaps the worst thing I've ever done. When someone you're close to confides in you about that sort of thing, you believe them. I still don't think repressed memory is a thing that happens, but if she told me that now I would not doubt her.
With my experience no one was accused of anything, though she later told me the man had gone to jail for sexually abusing someone else. Did her experience actually happen? I don't know. But I believer her story. She was a little kid, and she was obviously still confused by it. It's possible it took her a long time to understand the memory and event.
This is a good thread. I am certainly going to read some of the OP's mother's story. It's a good thing to share.
I'm not getting involved in all this debate, however.
One things for sure, though. I'm not getting involved in this debate.
If you think someone close to you may be capable of falsely accusing others of rape, you shouldn't be close to them.
Maybe the difficulty is with understanding the concept of having somebody "close to you". I don't mean that in a snotty way; we've already had one poster state that he doesn't enter into relationships because of an inability to have a normal level of trust and suspension of disbelief.
HushLittleBaby is not giving advice to police officers or district attorneys. S/he's talking about when somebody close to you says "I was raped." Do you or do you not know this person well enough to tell whether they are the kind of person who would deliberately lie about such a thing?
Reflexive skepticism and a refusal to say "I believe you" is not an expression of principle. It is a statement that you either believe this person capable of deliberately lying to your face and falsely accusing another, OR you don't know this person well enough to be able to judge their character.
Like I said anytime anyone says anything to me I approach it with rational thought.
If you think someone close to you may be capable of falsely accusing others of rape, you shouldn't be close to them.
Maybe the difficulty is with understanding the concept of having somebody "close to you". I don't mean that in a snotty way; we've already had one poster state that he doesn't enter into relationships because of an inability to have a normal level of trust and suspension of disbelief.
HushLittleBaby is not giving advice to police officers or district attorneys. S/he's talking about when somebody close to you says "I was raped." Do you or do you not know this person well enough to tell whether they are the kind of person who would deliberately lie about such a thing?
Reflexive skepticism and a refusal to say "I believe you" is not an expression of principle. It is a statement that you either believe this person capable of deliberately lying to your face and falsely accusing another, OR you don't know this person well enough to be able to judge their character.
Like I said anytime anyone says anything to me I approach it with rational thought.
It is a sad thing that a thread with such good, positive intentions had to turn into ridiculousness.
On topic but maybe more in line with the original intent of the thread:
I had a friend in high school who had been open with me about her belief that she may have been abused. She described it as though it had been a repressed memory. I have enormous doubts about repressed memory and in my foolish adolescence told her so. To this day I think it was perhaps the worst thing I've ever done. When someone you're close to confides in you about that sort of thing, you believe them. I still don't think repressed memory is a thing that happens, but if she told me that now I would not doubt her.
With my experience no one was accused of anything, though she later told me the man had gone to jail for sexually abusing someone else. Did her experience actually happen? I don't know. But I believer her story. She was a little kid, and she was obviously still confused by it. It's possible it took her a long time to understand the memory and event.
This is a good thread. I am certainly going to read some of the OP's mother's story. It's a good thing to share.
I'm not getting involved in all this debate, however.
One things for sure, though. I'm not getting involved in this debate.
Thank you for sharing this. I think it's respectable that you're self-aware enough to look within yourself and realize when you've made a mistake. I didn't always maintain my current attitude regarding abuse. It's tough to understand something like this because it is so unlike anything you or I have ever experienced.
It's great that you believe her now, and you really shouldn't torture yourself over the fact that you didn't believe her back then. You live and learn, and it's great that you are able to critically analyze your own beliefs and attitudes and adjust them as necessary.
If you think someone close to you may be capable of falsely accusing others of rape, you shouldn't be close to them.
Maybe the difficulty is with understanding the concept of having somebody "close to you". I don't mean that in a snotty way; we've already had one poster state that he doesn't enter into relationships because of an inability to have a normal level of trust and suspension of disbelief.
HushLittleBaby is not giving advice to police officers or district attorneys. S/he's talking about when somebody close to you says "I was raped." Do you or do you not know this person well enough to tell whether they are the kind of person who would deliberately lie about such a thing?
Reflexive skepticism and a refusal to say "I believe you" is not an expression of principle. It is a statement that you either believe this person capable of deliberately lying to your face and falsely accusing another, OR you don't know this person well enough to be able to judge their character.
Like I said anytime anyone says anything to me I approach it with rational thought.
Which I addressed, jesus. Seriously, can you see what I'm trying to do? I'm trying to get you to actually state your position. Damn, just out with it. Why am I wrong? If you say someone is making a strawman, show how. If not, but you believe you have covered the points, but your opponent does not, reiterate. This is so goddamn simple.
I stated my position on page 3 here let me quote it for you.
Once again you're not reading what I, or others, are saying. Soon you're going to start strawmanning as you've come close already. I'm saying if someone tells you, "you go omg that is horrible, tell me what happened" then you console them, then you support their actions to legally deal with the situation. You can do all of this without ever uttering the words "I believe you".
@Cat: I'm still reading through the first article. I also never claimed I was right because people disagreeing with me were using fallacy I was asking them to stop using fallacy in an attempt to prove me wrong and misinterpret my views.
Well I've just come into this thread and read it all. I've read your stated opinion and IT IS A TERRIBLE OPINION.
Part of being close to someone is knowing them and what they would do. If you are ever close enough to someone that you might console them for being raped BUT you still wouldn't actually believe them you are mentally ill or just horrible and shouldn't have people around you.
Relationships with humans involve trust.
The argument that you are close to a person therefore they couldn't be stating something untrue doesn't hold up when you consider people have lied about being raped and they have had friends and family as well. Also in this same quote I have stated how it should be handled and really how I've stated it should be handled can fit any crime including but not limited to sexual assault and/or rape.
If someone is close to you, you should assume they are telling the truth until proven otherwise. You should not assume that they are lying until proven otherwise.
-Human Relationships 101
There are problems with that logic as pointed out.
Ok here, i have bolded your argument. You know those friends of false accusers? You know what they did wrong? Nothing! You know why? Because they didn't have any power over the accused. They didn't send him to jail. The government assumes innocence so innocent people aren't sent to jail. As family members of the accuser, they don't have this power; they don't harm any innocents by assuming guilt.
People who assume innocence when they are close to the accuser, and the accuser is telling the truth? They significantly hurt the accuser.
And before you say, no i've already adressed that, because
A) you can support the accuser without believing them, so they aren't hurt
believing in the accuser when they're lying is damaging, because of vigilante justice
Go back and you'll find that i addressed your counterpoints, because thats how debate works.
A) Assuming innocence is the same as assuming the accuser is lying so it does hurt the accuser
vigilante justice is bad, you can believe in the accuser and still not go rambo
Seriously, i have responded to every counterpoint you have made. After i make the counterpoint, you just tell me to go read the thread again, like you have some invincible circle of logic.
It is a sad thing that a thread with such good, positive intentions had to turn into ridiculousness.
On topic but maybe more in line with the original intent of the thread:
I had a friend in high school who had been open with me about her belief that she may have been abused. She described it as though it had been a repressed memory. I have enormous doubts about repressed memory and in my foolish adolescence told her so. To this day I think it was perhaps the worst thing I've ever done. When someone you're close to confides in you about that sort of thing, you believe them. I still don't think repressed memory is a thing that happens, but if she told me that now I would not doubt her.
With my experience no one was accused of anything, though she later told me the man had gone to jail for sexually abusing someone else. Did her experience actually happen? I don't know. But I believer her story. She was a little kid, and she was obviously still confused by it. It's possible it took her a long time to understand the memory and event.
This is a good thread. I am certainly going to read some of the OP's mother's story. It's a good thing to share.
I'm not getting involved in all this debate, however.
One things for sure, though. I'm not getting involved in this debate.
At this point it's hardly a 'debate', so no worries.
I wouldn't be too hard on yourself about your friend; you were pretty young yourself at the time. And nothing you've said suggests that you were motivated by a desire to protect the person she thought abused her, or out of reflexive suspicion of people saying they were raped.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
If you think someone close to you may be capable of falsely accusing others of rape, you shouldn't be close to them.
Maybe the difficulty is with understanding the concept of having somebody "close to you". I don't mean that in a snotty way; we've already had one poster state that he doesn't enter into relationships because of an inability to have a normal level of trust and suspension of disbelief.
HushLittleBaby is not giving advice to police officers or district attorneys. S/he's talking about when somebody close to you says "I was raped." Do you or do you not know this person well enough to tell whether they are the kind of person who would deliberately lie about such a thing?
Reflexive skepticism and a refusal to say "I believe you" is not an expression of principle. It is a statement that you either believe this person capable of deliberately lying to your face and falsely accusing another, OR you don't know this person well enough to be able to judge their character.
Like I said anytime anyone says anything to me I approach it with rational thought.
'Love is merely a neurological electrochemical response.'
'You are going to die alone.'
'Death is by definition never a social experience. That is acceptable to me.'
Logic and rational thought are bad things. Who would have guessed.
Reading up on existentialism and absurdism would clear some things up for you on this one, but lets move on before podly comes rushing in asking us to define words
At this point it's hardly a 'debate', so no worries.
I wouldn't be too hard on yourself about your friend; you were pretty young yourself at the time. And nothing you've said suggests that you were motivated by a desire to protect the person she thought abused her, or out of reflexive suspicion of people saying they were raped.
Also, it's natural to be skeptical about "repressed/retrieved memories", because there've been a lot of hoaxes, shams and false accusations as a result of someone convincing an impressionable kid that surely something bad must of happened sometime if they just think really hard.
It would have probably been more comforting to her for Drac to have been less open about his skepticism, but like you said, they were both very young themselves at the time. There's no point beating yourself up over something you did when you were too young to know better, as difficult as it may be not to do so.
Ok here, i have bolded your argument. You know those friends of false accusers? You know what they did wrong? Nothing! You know why? Because they didn't have any power over the accused. They didn't send him to jail. The government assumes innocence so innocent people aren't sent to jail. As family members of the accuser, they don't have this power; they don't harm any innocents by assuming guilt.
People who assume innocence when they are close to the accuser, and the accuser is telling the truth? They significantly hurt the accuser.
And before you say, no i've already adressed that, because
A) you can support the accuser without believing them, so they aren't hurt
believing in the accuser when they're lying is damaging, because of vigilante justice
Go back and you'll find that i addressed your counterpoints, because thats how debate works.
A) Assuming innocence is the same as assuming the accuser is lying so it does hurt the accuser
vigilante justice is bad, you can believe in the accuser and still not go rambo
Seriously, i have responded to every counterpoint you have made. After i make the counterpoint, you just tell me to go read the thread again, like you have some invincible circle of logic.
You can provide support to someone without taking a stance in their innocence or guilt. I also said you keep an open mind neither affirming the person is telling the truth nor accusing they're lying, and realizing they could be lying is not the same thing as beliecing that they are lying.
Like I said anytime anyone says anything to me I approach it with rational thought.
Please see my post at #122. You really can't top yourself at this point.
Someone disagreeing with you doesn't make them a troll. Trying to accuse someone of trolling because you're incapable of debating with them makes you one though.
Also, it's natural to be skeptical about "repressed/retrieved memories", because there've been a lot of hoaxes, shams and false accusations as a result of someone convincing an impressionable kid that surely something bad must of happened sometime if they just think really hard.
Yes. And there is a difference between repressed memories of the "I blocked this out because it was painful" variety, and totally normal people suddenly "discovering", after hypnosis or high-pressure therapy sessions, that they were abused by a Satanic cult from the time they were six months old.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
You can provide support to someone without taking a stance in their innocence or guilt. I also said you keep an open mind neither affirming the person is telling the truth nor accusing they're lying, and realizing they could be lying is not the same thing as beliecing that they are lying.
What if you are asked, point blank by the accuser, if you believe them or not?
I still don't think repressed memory is a thing that happens, but if she told me that now I would not doubt her.
I'm sorry but this statement is in disagreement with itself. You can't think repressed memories aren't real and at the same time think she had one.
Note before I get misinterpreted for this statement I do believe repressed memories exist.
This may not have been clear, but I am aware there is a certain illogicality in believing her but saying I don't think memory can be repressed. I had mentioned that she was vague in what she told me, and that a lot of it was not even clear to her. I think now that it had to do with the possible trauma that she went through and her age at the time. I don't even know if repressed memory is what she actually meant when she was telling me about it, and I kind of doubt it was. Is it possible her memories had been fabricated? I suppose so, but that's hardly important. I know you're not going to understand, based on all of your previous posts, and that's fine. But the pain she felt and the shame and the reluctance in telling me did exist. Whether it happened or not, and I think it did, she had felt it and had suffered from it. And I believe her. It wasn't about getting attention or settling some score. It was about confiding in someone you trust about something that was terrible and had done harm.
Also to everyone else:
Don't worry. While I regret not believing her, but I don't go out of my way to beat myself up about it. I was a kid. I had no experience with that kind of thing.
I'll add as a word of advice that if anyone's ever able to go to a speak out against sexual assault, whether it's at a university or wherever else they hold them, you should definitely do it. It's very powerful. I think it's especially good for young men with no experience with sexual assault or abuse to hear stories from survivors. It can really change how you look at a lot of stuff.
You can provide support to someone without taking a stance in their innocence or guilt. I also said you keep an open mind neither affirming the person is telling the truth nor accusing they're lying, and realizing they could be lying is not the same thing as beliecing that they are lying.
What if you are asked, point blank by the accuser, if you believe them or not?
Who knows. There's too many things that could could affect my answer to that hypothetical.
What if you are asked, point blank by the accuser, if you believe them or not?
Who knows. There's too many things that could could affect my answer to that hypothetical.
Okay.
To be fair though, there are quite a few things that could affect your response to the hypothetical situation of a loved one coming to you and telling you "I was raped." Your thoughts about that situation right now is to approach with logic and a netural opinion. However, it's pretty impossible to determine how you would act if you were ever actually approached by your sister, brother, mother, child, etc and heard from them they were violated in such a way. To me, the chance of a level-headed, unemotional response seems slim.
I'll add as a word of advice that if anyone's ever able to go to a speak out against sexual assault, whether it's at a university or wherever else they hold them, you should definitely do it. It's very powerful. I think it's especially good for young men with no experience with sexual assault or abuse to hear stories from survivors. It can really change how you look at a lot of stuff.
Yes. And to do so without feeling that it's going to be "omg men suck" - it's not.
I have a close friend who was sexually abused by his father from as early as he could remember until he was about 9 or 10, when he blurted it out at the doctor's office. His mother immediately believed him, reported it and took steps to have his dad prosecuted. Oh yeah, and she divorced the assrag.
My friend is a decent person today. If he didn't talk about it (and he is comfortable discussing it now) you'd never know. A big part of that was his mother's decision to believe him, instead of putting her comfort level first.
Another friend of mine is a former JAG attorney. One of his first duties was to handle cases where a servicemember had been accused of sexually assaulting a family member (usually, their kid or stepkid). The biggest problem his office had was not false accusations. It was the point during the investigation at which the child's mother realized "hey, if my husband gets prosecuted and kicked out of the military, he loses his income and pension." Then, suddenly, Mom would march the child into the prosecutor's office and say something like 'she said she made it all up and it never happened so I want to drop the charges.' In one case, they had a mother of a deaf child 'interpret' the kid as saying it never happened - unaware that one of the JAG officers present was fluent in ASL, and could tell what the kid was actually signing.
He told me, with no amount of sarcasm, that "hilarity ensued" when Mom found out that it wasn't up to her whether to drop the charges.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Another friend of mine is a former JAG attorney. One of his first duties was to handle cases where a servicemember had been accused of sexually assaulting a family member (usually, their kid or stepkid). The biggest problem his office had was not false accusations. It was the point during the investigation at which the child's mother realized "hey, if my husband gets prosecuted and kicked out of the military, he loses his income and pension." Then, suddenly, Mom would march the child into the prosecutor's office and say something like 'she said she made it all up and it never happened so I want to drop the charges.' In one case, they had a mother of a deaf child 'interpret' the kid as saying it never happened - unaware that one of the JAG officers present was fluent in ASL, and could tell what the kid was actually signing.
He told me, with no amount of sarcasm, that "hilarity ensued" when Mom found out that it wasn't up to her whether to drop the charges.
This disgusts me and repulses me on every level. That woman is nearly as bad as the husband.
I'll add as a word of advice that if anyone's ever able to go to a speak out against sexual assault, whether it's at a university or wherever else they hold them, you should definitely do it. It's very powerful. I think it's especially good for young men with no experience with sexual assault or abuse to hear stories from survivors. It can really change how you look at a lot of stuff.
Yes. And to do so without feeling that it's going to be "omg men suck" - it's not.
I have a close friend who was sexually abused by his father from as early as he could remember until he was about 9 or 10, when he blurted it out at the doctor's office. His mother immediately believed him, reported it and took steps to have his dad prosecuted. Oh yeah, and she divorced the assrag.
My friend is a decent person today. If he didn't talk about it (and he is comfortable discussing it now) you'd never know. A big part of that was his mother's decision to believe him, instead of putting her comfort level first.
Another friend of mine is a former JAG attorney. One of his first duties was to handle cases where a servicemember had been accused of sexually assaulting a family member (usually, their kid or stepkid). The biggest problem his office had was not false accusations. It was the point during the investigation at which the child's mother realized "hey, if my husband gets prosecuted and kicked out of the military, he loses his income and pension." Then, suddenly, Mom would march the child into the prosecutor's office and say something like 'she said she made it all up and it never happened so I want to drop the charges.' In one case, they had a mother of a deaf child 'interpret' the kid as saying it never happened - unaware that one of the JAG officers present was fluent in ASL, and could tell what the kid was actually signing.
He told me, with no amount of sarcasm, that "hilarity ensued" when Mom found out that it wasn't up to her whether to drop the charges.
My mom's stepmother tended not to be an ally to my mother. Generally speaking, she looked the other way while the abuse happened. There was one great effort to get the kids away from their abuser, but that ended when the stepmom realized she had grown to depend emotionally and financially on this abuser, despite what a monster he was.
This disgusts me and repulses me on every level. That woman is nearly as bad as the husband.
Oh yes. It was just amazing to me that this was so common, to the point that my friend had been warned by senior attorneys to expect it. I'm sure there were false accusations, but they were hardly so common that they made a big impression on him.
HLB, has your mom read anything by Dorothy Allison, who suffered through similar abuse and wrote about it? I don't know if it would be helpful or triggering but just a thought.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
This disgusts me and repulses me on every level. That woman is nearly as bad as the husband.
Oh yes. It was just amazing to me that this was so common, to the point that my friend had been warned by senior attorneys to expect it. I'm sure there were false accusations, but they were hardly so common that they made a big impression on him.
HLB, has your mom read anything by Dorothy Allison, who suffered through similar abuse and wrote about it? I don't know if it would be helpful or triggering but just a thought.
I don't know if she ever did. I'd certainly be interested in reading any accounts of abuse you guys can suggest. In fact, one of the stated purposes of the thread is for forumers to suggest good lit on the subject, so thank you!
If you think someone close to you may be capable of falsely accusing others of rape, you shouldn't be close to them.
Maybe the difficulty is with understanding the concept of having somebody "close to you". I don't mean that in a snotty way; we've already had one poster state that he doesn't enter into relationships because of an inability to have a normal level of trust and suspension of disbelief.
HushLittleBaby is not giving advice to police officers or district attorneys. S/he's talking about when somebody close to you says "I was raped." Do you or do you not know this person well enough to tell whether they are the kind of person who would deliberately lie about such a thing?
Reflexive skepticism and a refusal to say "I believe you" is not an expression of principle. It is a statement that you either believe this person capable of deliberately lying to your face and falsely accusing another, OR you don't know this person well enough to be able to judge their character.
Like I said anytime anyone says anything to me I approach it with rational thought.
'Love is merely a neurological electrochemical response.'
'You are going to die alone.'
'Death is by definition never a social experience. That is acceptable to me.'
My response to that would be, "true."
I agree with DeShadowC as far as I understand his point. Which is admittedly not very far.
If someone I knew told me they were raped, I would first inform them that I'm probably not the best person to talk to. Then I would assess the situation. Who, where, when, how, etc. Then I would ask if they are physically intact at the present. Following that I would inquire as to what course of action they will take and go on from there.
Neither expressedly believing or disbelieving. Merely providing solid, unemotional council.
If someone comes up to you and says, "I was raped/sexually assaulted" it's not going to be some random person you barely know, it's going to be someone that feels like they can trust you. IE, someone you ought to know well enough to be able to pretty much figure out whether or not they're telling the truth as opposed to being some kind of pathological liar (or whatever other reason they might have for making it up). I don't get this obsession with refusing to take someone who's confiding in you at their word.
Duffel on
0
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
My mom was sexually abused by her father as a child as well. She never really recovered. She has something like multiple personalities. I don't know and she's never been diagnosed as she refuses to get treatment, but there are several sides to my mom and each one is like a separate person.
I don't really know why my parents got married. All these years later and after everything I've learned it just seems like such a terrible idea. But it happened and my family was broken before I was even born. I didn't understand what was happening when I was a child, but I didn't really know my father back then. He ran from the problems of a wife he couldn't help or understand or even cope with to his work.
I totally understand what you're saying, Hush, about believing victims, but I can't agree, at least not whole heartedly. My mom made stuff up about my dad. She never accused him of abusing her, but she accused him of all kinds of other things, things I learned weren't true over the years after my mom left. If I just simply believed her outright I wouldn't have a relationship with my father at all. My father is a good man who gave many years of his life to protecting the town I grew up in as a fire fighter and eventually the fire chief. He's not perfect, but he's not the uncaring megalomaniac my mom wants me to believe he is.
As a result I have a warm and healthy relationship with my father and a very tortured one with my mom. Victims deserve all the support you can give them, but if they don't want it, if they hurt you because of it, then there's only so much you can do.
My mom was sexually abused by her father as a child as well. She never really recovered. She has something like multiple personalities. I don't know and she's never been diagnosed as she refuses to get treatment, but there are several sides to my mom and each one is like a separate person.
I don't really know why my parents got married. All these years later and after everything I've learned it just seems like such a terrible idea. But it happened and my family was broken before I was even born. I didn't understand what was happening when I was a child, but I didn't really know my father back then. He ran from the problems of a wife he couldn't help or understand or even cope with to his work.
I totally understand what you're saying, Hush, about believing victims, but I can't agree, at least not whole heartedly. My mom made stuff up about my dad. She never accused him of abusing her, but she accused him of all kinds of other things, things I learned weren't true over the years after my mom left. If I just simply believed her outright I wouldn't have a relationship with my father at all. My father is a good man who gave many years of his life to protecting the town I grew up in as a fire fighter and eventually the fire chief. He's not perfect, but he's not the uncaring megalomaniac my mom wants me to believe he is.
As a result I have a warm and healthy relationship with my father and a very tortured one with my mom. Victims deserve all the support you can give them, but if they don't want it, if they hurt you because of it, then there's only so much you can do.
It sounds like your situation is very complicated, and it's one I have no right to judge. As such, though we may respectfully disagree in certain regards, I won't argue with you.
The aftereffects of abuse, and the way in which abuse victims react to what happened to them, vary wildly. Some people become so emotionally shattered that they can't maintain meaningful relationships with others without eventually driving them away. Some victims turn around and abuse their own children. Many react in far less destructive ways. I think my mom was able to channel her own torment into something positive by doing everything she could to ensure that I grew up in a safe, protected environment.
I guess the one constant is that all victims must cope with something monstrous, and the trauma never goes away. You can mitigate the effects to a degree, but you can't ever "get over it." I learned that as I observed my own mother coping with her demons.
She went through various periods of alcoholism, prescription drug abuse, and so on, but, thankfully, she did none of these things while I was growing up. She was a wonderful mother and only started abusing these substances after I had grown up. She would sometimes push people away if they tried to become close with her, undoubtedly a means of protecting herself from those who might betray her the way her father did.
But she was always strong, because she had to claw her way out of such a deep hole. Even despite her various addictions and sometimes-self-destructive behavior, she was an immensely strong person as evidenced by the wonderful life she helped build for herself and her family.
This is the main source of the stat, and it is widely accepted. Let me say that I doubt you've gone looking for information on this and consider your demands in poor faith. If you want to debate this, maybe you should educate yourself better before wading in.
Haven't seen anyone come back on this, but reading that first document, I don't see how it demonstrates what you say.
First, it talks of studies saying that the false reporting rate is comparable to normal false reporting rates, but only cites one study (2%) which was from 1979 - the entire point of the false reporting claim is that it has been rising in recent years due to heightened awareness and social changes. A 1979 report is not tremendously helpful.
Second, the report itself concludes that the false reporting rate is 8%. I don't know what the average false reporting rate is, but you need that before you can work out the answer to the question, and it doesn't include it. What it does do is (based on some pretty shaky evidence, which largely seems to be the observations of the report writers) is claim that the actual rate is 3%. That doesn't seem massively impartial to me.
Third, pertinent to this forum, where most people tend to be under 25 (at a guess), is the heightened false reporting among 16-25 year olds. 52% of the false reporting cases are from that age bracket, where only 42% of the cases which proceed are from the same age. Essentially, 16-25 year olds are probably both more prone to false reporting, less reliable witnesses, and in more ambiguous situation than those who are older. Whichever of these has more weight, it makes 16-25 something of a minefield of uncertainty for false reports of rape, even if they never make it to prosecution.
So you should acknowledge that for the likes of Shadow, his assertion is quite correct that false reporting is a problem among those he knows and is likely to know (apologies if I'm getting the age guess wrong), but as people get older the picture changes.
Either way, the summary and reflections of that part of the document reads to me like people trying to prove a hypothesis, not people trying to objectively report the facts. It would be interesting to see the generic false reporting percentage, because from the thrust of that document I'm guessing it would be closer to 3% than to 8%.
PS There is also a built-in fallacy in assuming that UK / US / AUS culture is all the same and these statistics apply equally across the Western world. Cultures of both reporting, sex and policing vary and would likely skew those figures in different countries.
This is the main source of the stat, and it is widely accepted. Let me say that I doubt you've gone looking for information on this and consider your demands in poor faith. If you want to debate this, maybe you should educate yourself better before wading in.
Haven't seen anyone come back on this, but reading that first document, I don't see how it demonstrates what you say.
First, it talks of studies saying that the false reporting rate is comparable to normal false reporting rates, but only cites one study (2%) which was from 1979 - the entire point of the false reporting claim is that it has been rising in recent years due to heightened awareness and social changes. A 1979 report is not tremendously helpful.
Second, the report itself concludes that the false reporting rate is 8%. I don't know what the average false reporting rate is, but you need that before you can work out the answer to the question, and it doesn't include it. What it does do is (based on some pretty shaky evidence, which largely seems to be the observations of the report writers) is claim that the actual rate is 3%. That doesn't seem massively impartial to me.
Third, pertinent to this forum, where most people tend to be under 25 (at a guess), is the heightened false reporting among 16-25 year olds. 52% of the false reporting cases are from that age bracket, where only 42% of the cases which proceed are from the same age. Essentially, 16-25 year olds are probably both more prone to false reporting, less reliable witnesses, and in more ambiguous situation than those who are older. Whichever of these has more weight, it makes 16-25 something of a minefield of uncertainty for false reports of rape, even if they never make it to prosecution.
So you should acknowledge that for the likes of Shadow, his assertion is quite correct that false reporting is a problem among those he knows and is likely to know (apologies if I'm getting the age guess wrong), but as people get older the picture changes.
Either way, the summary and reflections of that part of the document reads to me like people trying to prove a hypothesis, not people trying to objectively report the facts. It would be interesting to see the generic false reporting percentage, because from the thrust of that document I'm guessing it would be closer to 3% than to 8%.
PS There is also a built-in fallacy in assuming that UK / US / AUS culture is all the same and these statistics apply equally across the Western world. Cultures of both reporting, sex and policing vary and would likely skew those figures in different countries.
The statistical likelihood of a given human lying and whether you trust your friends and family have nothing to do with each other.
My wife has an X% chance of being a secret serial killer, but I'd be an idiot if I entertained the notion at all.
I'm starting to wonder if you guys have autism spectrum disorders, because this seems like a fundamental lack of understanding of human relationships.
It seems to me the most obvious answer is that you should show absolute belief in the person.
And that absolute belief should be a lie, because you should never stop thinking and reasoning, no matter what emotional investment you have in a situation.
Altalicious, part of the problem is defining "false rape reports". Are we including cases where the accuser is shown to have in fact deliberately lied? Or are we just including cases where there was not conclusive evidence, or the accuser withdrew the accusation? It also doesn't take into account the level of rapes that are not reported in the first place vs. the reporting rate for other crimes. If victims do not report actual rape because they're going to be treated like vindictive whores from start to finish, that's a problem, I think you'd agree.
If we're going by people's anecdata, my former JAG friend found the false reporting rate to be pretty much nonexistent, and by "false" I mean cases where the accuser was flat-out lying, or where the evidence was extremely shaky.
I don't understand why the default assumption is "lots of women lie about rape" and everybody has to disprove that. In the absence of evidence that rape is a crime with a lot of deliberately false reports, why should we assume it is?
ETA: and the 'young people lie more' statistics might want to take into account that young people are more likely to be targeted by rapists in the first place.
mythago on
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I confess that I skipped from page one to seven just to see if anyone was silly enough to go on defending the "assert absolute credulity over absolute support" proposition. Disappointed, but not surprised.
Honestly, I can't say that I associate with many people that I wouldn't immediately believe upon their voicing such accusations, but turning it into a 100% blanket rule that you're an asshole if you break requires you to be profoundly, maybe dangerously, silly.
As an example, my brother was shooting school photos for a while and had a brush with this demented cultural phenomenon. He walked some kid into the room to shoot him, has him go sit on the stool across the room, and manages to barely even get to his camera before the teacher who is less than thirty seconds behind him walks in. The kid immediately says, "He touched me!" The teacher told him to quit being stupid, and everyone moved on, but you have to wonder how often it breaks the other way.
People are statistically pretty safe, but we still have dipshits like Nancy Grace scaring the shit out of otherwise reasonable people. Scaring them so badly that they end up inadvertently coaching these miniature psychopaths. This doesn't even get into the various and sundry reasons that any specific adult that you know might be less than credible in this or any other matter.
Fun hypothetical. You have two dipshits in front of you. They both accuse the other of rape. Does this moronic rule work on a first come, first serve basis? Is gender or age given preference? Maybe some kind of personality quirks along the lines of mental disability or history of pathological deception? Please, tell me more about how to figure this out so that I can best apply this rule and avoid being an asshole.
I don't see why you can't be supportive while realizing there is a chance the person is wrong. You can't just question an alleged victim on whether he or she is telling the truth without possibly influencing the victim into recanting for reasons that don't have to do with the truthfulness of her accusation. The best thing you can do is support him or her in going through the process.
I confess that I skipped from page one to seven just to see if anyone was silly enough to go on defending the "assert absolute credulity over absolute support" proposition. Disappointed, but not surprised.
Honestly, I can't say that I associate with many people that I wouldn't immediately believe upon their voicing such accusations, but turning it into a 100% blanket rule that you're an asshole if you break requires you to be profoundly, maybe dangerously, silly.
As an example, my brother was shooting school photos for a while and had a brush with this demented cultural phenomenon. He walked some kid into the room to shoot him, has him go sit on the stool across the room, and manages to barely even get to his camera before the teacher who is less than thirty seconds behind him walks in. The kid immediately says, "He touched me!" The teacher told him to quit being stupid, and everyone moved on, but you have to wonder how often it breaks the other way.
People are statistically pretty safe, but we still have dipshits like Nancy Grace scaring the shit out of otherwise reasonable people. Scaring them so badly that they end up inadvertently coaching these miniature psychopaths. This doesn't even get into the various and sundry reasons that any specific adult that you know might be less than credible in this or any other matter.
Fun hypothetical. You have two dipshits in front of you. They both accuse the other of rape. Does this moronic rule work on a first come, first serve basis? Is gender or age given preference? Maybe some kind of personality quirks along the lines of mental disability or history of pathological deception? Please, tell me more about how to figure this out so that I can best apply this rule and avoid being an asshole.
This entire thread can be summed up as use common sense.
If its two random dipshits, of course you won't immediately believe them.
If its a close friend or family member, you should and will.
How this idea has spawned 7 pages of FALLACY! I have not a clue.
The frequency with which people cry wolf about this sort of thing, and the incredible, permanent stigma unloaded on the accused regardless of innocence or guilt, pretty much means any accusation of sexual abuse needs to be met with some degree of skepticism.
Sorry folks, when crooked ass people start a trend of using sexual abuse accusations as a weapon against enemies in a society, because of the permanent reputation damage it does, whether the claim is true or not, you can no longer take the claims at face value every time. They need to be met with rational thinking, not emotional kneejerks.
We've taught the more intelligent, less morally sound children in our society that if a grown up does or says something they don't like, all they have to do is claim bad touch to remove said grown up from the picture entirely.
Blind belief in anything a damn kid or anyone else says is the epitome of stupid. People make up stories all the goddamn time to get what they want out of others.
The statistical likelihood of a given human lying and whether you trust your friends and family have nothing to do with each other.
My wife has an X% chance of being a secret serial killer, but I'd be an idiot if I entertained the notion at all.
I'm starting to wonder if you guys have autism spectrum disorders, because this seems like a fundamental lack of understanding of human relationships.
The way I see it, trust has nothing to do with the statistical likelihood of someone lying. Trusting someone doesn't mean that they are any more likely to be telling to truth. Trust doesn't modify anything external. It only means you are believing someone for an arbitrary reason. Arbitrary to establishing the veracity of a claim. The veracity of the claim having nothing to do with your assumptions.
Your wife may be a secret serial killer. There is the same chance of her being such no matter what your opinion on the matter is.
I confess that I skipped from page one to seven just to see if anyone was silly enough to go on defending the "assert absolute credulity over absolute support" proposition. Disappointed, but not surprised.
Honestly, I can't say that I associate with many people that I wouldn't immediately believe upon their voicing such accusations, but turning it into a 100% blanket rule that you're an asshole if you break requires you to be profoundly, maybe dangerously, silly.
As an example, my brother was shooting school photos for a while and had a brush with this demented cultural phenomenon. He walked some kid into the room to shoot him, has him go sit on the stool across the room, and manages to barely even get to his camera before the teacher who is less than thirty seconds behind him walks in. The kid immediately says, "He touched me!" The teacher told him to quit being stupid, and everyone moved on, but you have to wonder how often it breaks the other way.
People are statistically pretty safe, but we still have dipshits like Nancy Grace scaring the shit out of otherwise reasonable people. Scaring them so badly that they end up inadvertently coaching these miniature psychopaths. This doesn't even get into the various and sundry reasons that any specific adult that you know might be less than credible in this or any other matter.
Fun hypothetical. You have two dipshits in front of you. They both accuse the other of rape. Does this moronic rule work on a first come, first serve basis? Is gender or age given preference? Maybe some kind of personality quirks along the lines of mental disability or history of pathological deception? Please, tell me more about how to figure this out so that I can best apply this rule and avoid being an asshole.
This entire thread can be summed up as use common sense.
If its two random dipshits, of course you won't immediately believe them.
If its a close friend or family member, you should and will.
How this idea has spawned 7 pages of FALLACY! I have not a clue.
Nobody said anything about random. If your family doesn't have its share of dipshits and liars, you're probably an orphan.
This is the main source of the stat, and it is widely accepted. Let me say that I doubt you've gone looking for information on this and consider your demands in poor faith. If you want to debate this, maybe you should educate yourself better before wading in.
Haven't seen anyone come back on this, but reading that first document, I don't see how it demonstrates what you say.
First, it talks of studies saying that the false reporting rate is comparable to normal false reporting rates, but only cites one study (2%) which was from 1979 - the entire point of the false reporting claim is that it has been rising in recent years due to heightened awareness and social changes. A 1979 report is not tremendously helpful.
Second, the report itself concludes that the false reporting rate is 8%. I don't know what the average false reporting rate is, but you need that before you can work out the answer to the question, and it doesn't include it. What it does do is (based on some pretty shaky evidence, which largely seems to be the observations of the report writers) is claim that the actual rate is 3%. That doesn't seem massively impartial to me.
Third, pertinent to this forum, where most people tend to be under 25 (at a guess), is the heightened false reporting among 16-25 year olds. 52% of the false reporting cases are from that age bracket, where only 42% of the cases which proceed are from the same age. Essentially, 16-25 year olds are probably both more prone to false reporting, less reliable witnesses, and in more ambiguous situation than those who are older. Whichever of these has more weight, it makes 16-25 something of a minefield of uncertainty for false reports of rape, even if they never make it to prosecution.
So you should acknowledge that for the likes of Shadow, his assertion is quite correct that false reporting is a problem among those he knows and is likely to know (apologies if I'm getting the age guess wrong), but as people get older the picture changes.
Either way, the summary and reflections of that part of the document reads to me like people trying to prove a hypothesis, not people trying to objectively report the facts. It would be interesting to see the generic false reporting percentage, because from the thrust of that document I'm guessing it would be closer to 3% than to 8%.
PS There is also a built-in fallacy in assuming that UK / US / AUS culture is all the same and these statistics apply equally across the Western world. Cultures of both reporting, sex and policing vary and would likely skew those figures in different countries.
There's a couple of points you're basically right on, regional variation in particular, but I don't believe that that report is anywhere near worthless as a result. The second link I posted goes into a lot of the reasons why the stats surrounding this issue are so complicated, and I think you might find it valuable in providing context to the first link.
While the data available in the above links and from other sources is time- and context/definition-dependant, I contest that its fair to say that 'proper' sexual assault false report rates (that is, reports minus the obvious fakes - people yelling 'rape' to get police attention, phantom unnamed assailants etc) don't differ significantly from overall false crime reports. I further contest that in the absence of any of the warning signals of false reports discussed in the second link, its absolutely correct to believe someone close to you when they say they've been sexually abused. Doing otherwise is irresponsible, callous, shitty behaviour that we should all endeavour to avoid.
Posts
I'm admiring the craft on this one. It's absolutely impossible to tell if this is a pinnacle of silly goosery or a complete troll.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Like I said anytime anyone says anything to me I approach it with rational thought.
@Vash: You really haven't
On topic but maybe more in line with the original intent of the thread:
I had a friend in high school who had been open with me about her belief that she may have been abused. She described it as though it had been a repressed memory. I have enormous doubts about repressed memory and in my foolish adolescence told her so. To this day I think it was perhaps the worst thing I've ever done. When someone you're close to confides in you about that sort of thing, you believe them. I still don't think repressed memory is a thing that happens, but if she told me that now I would not doubt her.
With my experience no one was accused of anything, though she later told me the man had gone to jail for sexually abusing someone else. Did her experience actually happen? I don't know. But I believer her story. She was a little kid, and she was obviously still confused by it. It's possible it took her a long time to understand the memory and event.
This is a good thread. I am certainly going to read some of the OP's mother's story. It's a good thing to share.
I'm not getting involved in all this debate, however.
One things for sure, though. I'm not getting involved in this debate.
'I love you.'
'Love is merely a neurological electrochemical response.'
'You are going to die alone.'
'Death is by definition never a social experience. That is acceptable to me.'
I'm sorry but this statement is in disagreement with itself. You can't think repressed memories aren't real and at the same time think she had one.
Note before I get misinterpreted for this statement I do believe repressed memories exist.
Logic and rational thought are bad things. Who would have guessed.
Thank you for sharing this. I think it's respectable that you're self-aware enough to look within yourself and realize when you've made a mistake. I didn't always maintain my current attitude regarding abuse. It's tough to understand something like this because it is so unlike anything you or I have ever experienced.
It's great that you believe her now, and you really shouldn't torture yourself over the fact that you didn't believe her back then. You live and learn, and it's great that you are able to critically analyze your own beliefs and attitudes and adjust them as necessary.
People who assume innocence when they are close to the accuser, and the accuser is telling the truth? They significantly hurt the accuser.
And before you say, no i've already adressed that, because
A) you can support the accuser without believing them, so they aren't hurt
Go back and you'll find that i addressed your counterpoints, because thats how debate works.
A) Assuming innocence is the same as assuming the accuser is lying so it does hurt the accuser
Seriously, i have responded to every counterpoint you have made. After i make the counterpoint, you just tell me to go read the thread again, like you have some invincible circle of logic.
At this point it's hardly a 'debate', so no worries.
I wouldn't be too hard on yourself about your friend; you were pretty young yourself at the time. And nothing you've said suggests that you were motivated by a desire to protect the person she thought abused her, or out of reflexive suspicion of people saying they were raped.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Please see my post at #122. You really can't top yourself at this point.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Reading up on existentialism and absurdism would clear some things up for you on this one, but lets move on before podly comes rushing in asking us to define words
It would have probably been more comforting to her for Drac to have been less open about his skepticism, but like you said, they were both very young themselves at the time. There's no point beating yourself up over something you did when you were too young to know better, as difficult as it may be not to do so.
You can provide support to someone without taking a stance in their innocence or guilt. I also said you keep an open mind neither affirming the person is telling the truth nor accusing they're lying, and realizing they could be lying is not the same thing as beliecing that they are lying.
Someone disagreeing with you doesn't make them a troll. Trying to accuse someone of trolling because you're incapable of debating with them makes you one though.
Yes. And there is a difference between repressed memories of the "I blocked this out because it was painful" variety, and totally normal people suddenly "discovering", after hypnosis or high-pressure therapy sessions, that they were abused by a Satanic cult from the time they were six months old.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
What if you are asked, point blank by the accuser, if you believe them or not?
This may not have been clear, but I am aware there is a certain illogicality in believing her but saying I don't think memory can be repressed. I had mentioned that she was vague in what she told me, and that a lot of it was not even clear to her. I think now that it had to do with the possible trauma that she went through and her age at the time. I don't even know if repressed memory is what she actually meant when she was telling me about it, and I kind of doubt it was. Is it possible her memories had been fabricated? I suppose so, but that's hardly important. I know you're not going to understand, based on all of your previous posts, and that's fine. But the pain she felt and the shame and the reluctance in telling me did exist. Whether it happened or not, and I think it did, she had felt it and had suffered from it. And I believe her. It wasn't about getting attention or settling some score. It was about confiding in someone you trust about something that was terrible and had done harm.
Also to everyone else:
Don't worry. While I regret not believing her, but I don't go out of my way to beat myself up about it. I was a kid. I had no experience with that kind of thing.
I'll add as a word of advice that if anyone's ever able to go to a speak out against sexual assault, whether it's at a university or wherever else they hold them, you should definitely do it. It's very powerful. I think it's especially good for young men with no experience with sexual assault or abuse to hear stories from survivors. It can really change how you look at a lot of stuff.
Who knows. There's too many things that could could affect my answer to that hypothetical.
Okay.
To be fair though, there are quite a few things that could affect your response to the hypothetical situation of a loved one coming to you and telling you "I was raped." Your thoughts about that situation right now is to approach with logic and a netural opinion. However, it's pretty impossible to determine how you would act if you were ever actually approached by your sister, brother, mother, child, etc and heard from them they were violated in such a way. To me, the chance of a level-headed, unemotional response seems slim.
Yes. And to do so without feeling that it's going to be "omg men suck" - it's not.
I have a close friend who was sexually abused by his father from as early as he could remember until he was about 9 or 10, when he blurted it out at the doctor's office. His mother immediately believed him, reported it and took steps to have his dad prosecuted. Oh yeah, and she divorced the assrag.
My friend is a decent person today. If he didn't talk about it (and he is comfortable discussing it now) you'd never know. A big part of that was his mother's decision to believe him, instead of putting her comfort level first.
Another friend of mine is a former JAG attorney. One of his first duties was to handle cases where a servicemember had been accused of sexually assaulting a family member (usually, their kid or stepkid). The biggest problem his office had was not false accusations. It was the point during the investigation at which the child's mother realized "hey, if my husband gets prosecuted and kicked out of the military, he loses his income and pension." Then, suddenly, Mom would march the child into the prosecutor's office and say something like 'she said she made it all up and it never happened so I want to drop the charges.' In one case, they had a mother of a deaf child 'interpret' the kid as saying it never happened - unaware that one of the JAG officers present was fluent in ASL, and could tell what the kid was actually signing.
He told me, with no amount of sarcasm, that "hilarity ensued" when Mom found out that it wasn't up to her whether to drop the charges.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
This disgusts me and repulses me on every level. That woman is nearly as bad as the husband.
My mom's stepmother tended not to be an ally to my mother. Generally speaking, she looked the other way while the abuse happened. There was one great effort to get the kids away from their abuser, but that ended when the stepmom realized she had grown to depend emotionally and financially on this abuser, despite what a monster he was.
Oh yes. It was just amazing to me that this was so common, to the point that my friend had been warned by senior attorneys to expect it. I'm sure there were false accusations, but they were hardly so common that they made a big impression on him.
HLB, has your mom read anything by Dorothy Allison, who suffered through similar abuse and wrote about it? I don't know if it would be helpful or triggering but just a thought.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
I don't know if she ever did. I'd certainly be interested in reading any accounts of abuse you guys can suggest. In fact, one of the stated purposes of the thread is for forumers to suggest good lit on the subject, so thank you!
My response to that would be, "true."
I agree with DeShadowC as far as I understand his point. Which is admittedly not very far.
If someone I knew told me they were raped, I would first inform them that I'm probably not the best person to talk to. Then I would assess the situation. Who, where, when, how, etc. Then I would ask if they are physically intact at the present. Following that I would inquire as to what course of action they will take and go on from there.
Neither expressedly believing or disbelieving. Merely providing solid, unemotional council.
If someone comes up to you and says, "I was raped/sexually assaulted" it's not going to be some random person you barely know, it's going to be someone that feels like they can trust you. IE, someone you ought to know well enough to be able to pretty much figure out whether or not they're telling the truth as opposed to being some kind of pathological liar (or whatever other reason they might have for making it up). I don't get this obsession with refusing to take someone who's confiding in you at their word.
I don't really know why my parents got married. All these years later and after everything I've learned it just seems like such a terrible idea. But it happened and my family was broken before I was even born. I didn't understand what was happening when I was a child, but I didn't really know my father back then. He ran from the problems of a wife he couldn't help or understand or even cope with to his work.
I totally understand what you're saying, Hush, about believing victims, but I can't agree, at least not whole heartedly. My mom made stuff up about my dad. She never accused him of abusing her, but she accused him of all kinds of other things, things I learned weren't true over the years after my mom left. If I just simply believed her outright I wouldn't have a relationship with my father at all. My father is a good man who gave many years of his life to protecting the town I grew up in as a fire fighter and eventually the fire chief. He's not perfect, but he's not the uncaring megalomaniac my mom wants me to believe he is.
As a result I have a warm and healthy relationship with my father and a very tortured one with my mom. Victims deserve all the support you can give them, but if they don't want it, if they hurt you because of it, then there's only so much you can do.
It sounds like your situation is very complicated, and it's one I have no right to judge. As such, though we may respectfully disagree in certain regards, I won't argue with you.
The aftereffects of abuse, and the way in which abuse victims react to what happened to them, vary wildly. Some people become so emotionally shattered that they can't maintain meaningful relationships with others without eventually driving them away. Some victims turn around and abuse their own children. Many react in far less destructive ways. I think my mom was able to channel her own torment into something positive by doing everything she could to ensure that I grew up in a safe, protected environment.
I guess the one constant is that all victims must cope with something monstrous, and the trauma never goes away. You can mitigate the effects to a degree, but you can't ever "get over it." I learned that as I observed my own mother coping with her demons.
She went through various periods of alcoholism, prescription drug abuse, and so on, but, thankfully, she did none of these things while I was growing up. She was a wonderful mother and only started abusing these substances after I had grown up. She would sometimes push people away if they tried to become close with her, undoubtedly a means of protecting herself from those who might betray her the way her father did.
But she was always strong, because she had to claw her way out of such a deep hole. Even despite her various addictions and sometimes-self-destructive behavior, she was an immensely strong person as evidenced by the wonderful life she helped build for herself and her family.
Haven't seen anyone come back on this, but reading that first document, I don't see how it demonstrates what you say.
First, it talks of studies saying that the false reporting rate is comparable to normal false reporting rates, but only cites one study (2%) which was from 1979 - the entire point of the false reporting claim is that it has been rising in recent years due to heightened awareness and social changes. A 1979 report is not tremendously helpful.
Second, the report itself concludes that the false reporting rate is 8%. I don't know what the average false reporting rate is, but you need that before you can work out the answer to the question, and it doesn't include it. What it does do is (based on some pretty shaky evidence, which largely seems to be the observations of the report writers) is claim that the actual rate is 3%. That doesn't seem massively impartial to me.
Third, pertinent to this forum, where most people tend to be under 25 (at a guess), is the heightened false reporting among 16-25 year olds. 52% of the false reporting cases are from that age bracket, where only 42% of the cases which proceed are from the same age. Essentially, 16-25 year olds are probably both more prone to false reporting, less reliable witnesses, and in more ambiguous situation than those who are older. Whichever of these has more weight, it makes 16-25 something of a minefield of uncertainty for false reports of rape, even if they never make it to prosecution.
So you should acknowledge that for the likes of Shadow, his assertion is quite correct that false reporting is a problem among those he knows and is likely to know (apologies if I'm getting the age guess wrong), but as people get older the picture changes.
Either way, the summary and reflections of that part of the document reads to me like people trying to prove a hypothesis, not people trying to objectively report the facts. It would be interesting to see the generic false reporting percentage, because from the thrust of that document I'm guessing it would be closer to 3% than to 8%.
PS There is also a built-in fallacy in assuming that UK / US / AUS culture is all the same and these statistics apply equally across the Western world. Cultures of both reporting, sex and policing vary and would likely skew those figures in different countries.
The statistical likelihood of a given human lying and whether you trust your friends and family have nothing to do with each other.
My wife has an X% chance of being a secret serial killer, but I'd be an idiot if I entertained the notion at all.
I'm starting to wonder if you guys have autism spectrum disorders, because this seems like a fundamental lack of understanding of human relationships.
And that absolute belief should be a lie, because you should never stop thinking and reasoning, no matter what emotional investment you have in a situation.
If we're going by people's anecdata, my former JAG friend found the false reporting rate to be pretty much nonexistent, and by "false" I mean cases where the accuser was flat-out lying, or where the evidence was extremely shaky.
I don't understand why the default assumption is "lots of women lie about rape" and everybody has to disprove that. In the absence of evidence that rape is a crime with a lot of deliberately false reports, why should we assume it is?
ETA: and the 'young people lie more' statistics might want to take into account that young people are more likely to be targeted by rapists in the first place.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
Honestly, I can't say that I associate with many people that I wouldn't immediately believe upon their voicing such accusations, but turning it into a 100% blanket rule that you're an asshole if you break requires you to be profoundly, maybe dangerously, silly.
As an example, my brother was shooting school photos for a while and had a brush with this demented cultural phenomenon. He walked some kid into the room to shoot him, has him go sit on the stool across the room, and manages to barely even get to his camera before the teacher who is less than thirty seconds behind him walks in. The kid immediately says, "He touched me!" The teacher told him to quit being stupid, and everyone moved on, but you have to wonder how often it breaks the other way.
People are statistically pretty safe, but we still have dipshits like Nancy Grace scaring the shit out of otherwise reasonable people. Scaring them so badly that they end up inadvertently coaching these miniature psychopaths. This doesn't even get into the various and sundry reasons that any specific adult that you know might be less than credible in this or any other matter.
Fun hypothetical. You have two dipshits in front of you. They both accuse the other of rape. Does this moronic rule work on a first come, first serve basis? Is gender or age given preference? Maybe some kind of personality quirks along the lines of mental disability or history of pathological deception? Please, tell me more about how to figure this out so that I can best apply this rule and avoid being an asshole.
This entire thread can be summed up as use common sense.
If its two random dipshits, of course you won't immediately believe them.
If its a close friend or family member, you should and will.
How this idea has spawned 7 pages of FALLACY! I have not a clue.
Sorry folks, when crooked ass people start a trend of using sexual abuse accusations as a weapon against enemies in a society, because of the permanent reputation damage it does, whether the claim is true or not, you can no longer take the claims at face value every time. They need to be met with rational thinking, not emotional kneejerks.
We've taught the more intelligent, less morally sound children in our society that if a grown up does or says something they don't like, all they have to do is claim bad touch to remove said grown up from the picture entirely.
Blind belief in anything a damn kid or anyone else says is the epitome of stupid. People make up stories all the goddamn time to get what they want out of others.
The way I see it, trust has nothing to do with the statistical likelihood of someone lying. Trusting someone doesn't mean that they are any more likely to be telling to truth. Trust doesn't modify anything external. It only means you are believing someone for an arbitrary reason. Arbitrary to establishing the veracity of a claim. The veracity of the claim having nothing to do with your assumptions.
Your wife may be a secret serial killer. There is the same chance of her being such no matter what your opinion on the matter is.
Nobody said anything about random. If your family doesn't have its share of dipshits and liars, you're probably an orphan.
[citation needed]
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
There's a couple of points you're basically right on, regional variation in particular, but I don't believe that that report is anywhere near worthless as a result. The second link I posted goes into a lot of the reasons why the stats surrounding this issue are so complicated, and I think you might find it valuable in providing context to the first link.
While the data available in the above links and from other sources is time- and context/definition-dependant, I contest that its fair to say that 'proper' sexual assault false report rates (that is, reports minus the obvious fakes - people yelling 'rape' to get police attention, phantom unnamed assailants etc) don't differ significantly from overall false crime reports. I further contest that in the absence of any of the warning signals of false reports discussed in the second link, its absolutely correct to believe someone close to you when they say they've been sexually abused. Doing otherwise is irresponsible, callous, shitty behaviour that we should all endeavour to avoid.