Doctor Assaulted Suicidal Transgender Patient

[whatsername]

I didn't mention anything to do with lawsuits. The fear of being accused is as much to do with the horror of thinking you might actually have made her feel that way, as it is of simply the accusal itself. We don't want to be, be seen, or feel like the guy who does that to someone.

It's the same fear, you're the only one focussing on the letigeous aspect of it.

You're right, because I thought that was what was being discussed.  I'm glad to see you mean also that men don't want to be rapists, and do care about their partner's feelings.  In that, I agree with you, and do think men are (generally, the good ones anyway) conscious of their partners feelings and desire a willing and enthusiastic partner.

What makes you so sure you could possibly comprehend how it would feel to worry that you might make the one you love/make love with feel forced?

As I said above, that was not what I was discussing.  I took you to be referring to a fear from men of being "falsely" accused of rape, of being prosecuted for something they didn't do.  Not a fear of actually raping someone when you didn't mean to.

Which is why you lose me again here:

Being falsely accused can ruin men's lives, and bring raped can be just as destructive to females.

Which are we discussing here?  False accusations and how dare those women accuse me of this?  Or true accusations when rape wasn't the man's intent?  Or what?

The reason I am driving in the point that I am is precisely because I too have had this argument a dozen times with the majority of people acting the way you are.

I can sympathize with the frustration.  But given the national, and international, statistics, I simply can't attribute the same level of credibility to every man who claims to be falsely accused.  The numbers don't add up.

However were I on a jury I would not jump to any conclusions.

But surely being the wife of a man who was falsely accused you *can* appreciate the damage it can do? And with that in mind, how am I so wrong in saying that contributing to the witchhunt against a man in that position is unfair?

Yes I do appreciate it.  Especially because it happened in CA, he's on the rolls for life.  I had a lot of anger, a lot of it, for the woman who did this to him.

But as I grew up I realized she was young and stupid, and while that doesn't change what he has to deal with now and while it was still incredibly wrong, I would want to hear her side of the events.

I don't think I'm contributing to any kind of a witch hunt.  The facts of rape in this country are shocking.  The attitudes prevalent in this country are equally so.  Women are sexually assaulted and raped and coerced into sex against their own desires all the time.  That has to change.  And as I have grown up with the fear of knowing I could be one of the 1 in 3... Yes, I sympathize with women.

What perhaps is not apparent to you, partly because of what we've covered here and partly because of your history of similar arguments, is that I have compassion and sympathy for both sides of this story.  I think the police and the courts should be as unbiased as possible when dealing with these cases.  I don't think they should jump to conclusions.  In other words, I think they should treat both accuser and accused as though they are innocent until proven guilty.  That's how it's supposed to be.

That doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the facts of sexual assault in this country though.  That doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the women who are deemed un-credible because they were drinking, or wearing provocative clothing, or emotionally vulernable, or were "promiscuous"... I've seen those cases happen.  I've read about them in the news.  We have really, really, twisted beliefs about what makes a victim a real victim, and I can't just sit back and let that perspective be justified over and over and over.  It's wrong.  It's wrong, and rapists take advantage of it, they play into our preconceptions so they can get away with it.

But it seems you're assuming that because I'm arguing that this case is pretty dang clear cut means I will tar and feather any man accused.  That's just not so.

[Truth Seeker]

Whatsername,

Perhaps you are right, and I apologize if I came across as unreasonable.

My original point in this post was directed at Nichole, not yourself... somewhere along the lines you both seemed to kind of merge into a single entity. I'm not sure where you even joined in.

I'm certainly not dismissing the rape statistics, and actually I had no idea that the figures were as high as 1 in 3 over there; that's appauling. All I was trying to explain is that if we assume the men are guilty simply because it's more likely, that those assumptions stand to hurt those men who are not guilty.

This consequence may not be so prevelant over there, but this does not change the fact that it does exist, and any assumption of any kind is still just as bad as assuming a women is lying when she said she's been raped. It's just double standards that I have a problem with, my point is no more complicated or involved than that.

Which are we discussing here?  False accusations and how dare those women accuse me of this?  Or true accusations when rape wasn't the man's intent?  Or what?

As I said, fear of accusal incorporates not only the damage to one's reputation, but also the fear of being responsible for making someone feel they have been raped, it's the *same issue.*

Men don't want their lives to be turned upside down by EITHER the thought of doing that to someone, OR having to face the prejudice of everyone assuming they were rapists when they were not. Court cases, hurting the one you love, being judged by society, it's all part of the same matter.

Thus, the heart of my point is that men fear being falsely accused, for ALL of these reasons. The assumption of a man's guilt is all part in parcel of that situation, and it's this which I am discouraging.


Truth Seeker

[NicholeW.]

The difference is I am arguing a neutral point, I'm not making an assumption one way or the other, and as such neither am I being hypocritical in the presentation of my points. All I am saying is that it *can* happen either way, and as such we should never make assumptions either way.

I suppose that what I am not seeing is that your are "arguing a neutral pov." There's a definite leaning in your argumentation.


It's not irrational, but simply "inexperienced." I would also presume, and presumption it is, that you've never been falsely accused?


I mean, can we argue "neutrally" for the existence of genocide or not in Darfur or Rwanda when the bodies are there to see and the bodies partake of an ethnic similarity? I mean, that doesn't mean they were slain because of their ethnicity I suppose. Wasn't there to see it or to hear the motives of the killers.


I simply see your thought that you are somehow "rational" about the matter is absolutely no more rational than is my experiential reaction.


This case indicates the doctor was found guilty of misusing his position. Was that in doubt? He may not have been convicted of raping her but performing  "digital penetration" in her home doesn't seem like the actions of an "innocent" whose life is being ruined by some "false accusation."


In point-of-fact the ways you've come at this, TS, are completely abstract cogitations about possibility. And in doing so, I am thinking you are able to be "rational" about not making assumptions simply because you're phsyical and social status lends itself to not having a particular concern about ever being victimized.


Are there false accusations of rape? Are there instances when "remorse" after a perfectly consenting act causes accusations to be made against otherwise innocent males? Why yes.


Does that in some way lessen the validity of rape statistics to a large enough extent to say that "men are losing their livlihoods for something they didn't do?" That I would take issue with. Nor could I argue that pov that I do not find neutral at all, but rather jaundiced by one's own pov in regard to who they are.

 
I find it terribly easy to argue for a position that doesn't affect me on a regular basis. In that regard I can and am "neutral." But, my neutrality is simply the way I am viewing something that "might" someday affect me, but never has and that I can only imagine. In that fashion my argument is simply a "pose" of neutrality.


Nothing wrong with that, we all have 'em. TBH, I have no real concerns about "prostate problems." I was on medication to prevent them for four years and my "prostate" is the size of a g-spot and rather easily removeable. So, I might say, what's the concern with prostate cancer? Why make a huge deal of it?


I believe my view then is not rational, but one that encompasses my own interest and my sense that "I don't worry about that." I'd submit your "neutrality" pretty much has the same origin, or at the least could. Neutrality is much easier when the event has little chance of personally affecting me.


Nichole


And yes, I also have some "triggers" over the well-used stance of males responding to women with the "be rational" argument. There, I think I've pretty well-covered my prejudices. What could be yours? If any?


BTW, the "double standards" arguments are a ruse on a consistent basis. There is always a "double-standard" effect proposed when a group who has been powerful for a long period of time is no longer quite so powerful. Then they inevitably argue that they are now being treated with a "double-standard."


That rape and sexual molestation were "non-issues" for generations all over the western world is simply a fact. When they became issues the "double-standard" suddenly became very important to any argument. Sorry, that doesn't wash in my mind either. Why the "double-standard" approach now and not fifty years ago when you and I were children? 

[Truth Seeker]

Nichole, you don't appear to understand what exactly my case in this discussion actually is, and if I were to continue clarifying it I would only be repeating myself. So I would respectfully ask that you read my previous posts again to save time and space.

If you seriously think you can sense even the slightest "leaning" on my part toward any specific bias then I assure you the problem is most assuredly on your end. You are seeing in my words what you expect to see, which explains why I have to keep redefining my points.

If I were to go on, the same thing would happen, so there is no point to it. I cannot have possibly made the total neutrality of my beliefs more clear, the issue is purely how you are choosing to recieve it.


Assumption, when dealing with a person's life, happiness, reputation or sanity is nothing more than a destructive thing. If we assume women are always faking it, the very thing you are so passionately against, then we are hurting those women. The exact same thing applies to assuming men are guilty.

If you really cannot see that, then I really think you need to ask yourself honestly which of us is being biassed. I am at peace with my beliefs, so I feel no further need to prove myself. Take care.


Truth Seeker

[NicholeW.]

You too.