Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Doctor Assaulted Suicidal Transgender Patient

http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/3265/Doctor-Assaulted-Suicidal-Transgender-Patient.htm (http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/3265/Doctor-Assaulted-Suicidal-Transgender-Patient.htm)
11/24/2008

A Melbourne Doctor has been found guilty of performing an indecent act upon a suicidal transgender patient only a day before International Transgender Day of Remembrance.

In June 2007, 53-year-old Sulieman Hamid was accused of touching a suicidal transgender woman in a Sunshine Hospital. Hamid was also accused of raping the woman back at her home the following day. Earlier in the trial the court heard that the woman propositioned Hamid, whilst he was treating her for a slashed wrist. The patient has a long history of suicidal tendencies and is also suffering a borderline personality disorder.

Um. WHAT

Quote from: whatsername on November 24, 2008, 12:38:44 AM
Um. WHAT

Lol.

Sounds like she was offering, and he left all professional and moral decency behind and took her up on it.  Then she changed her mind and thought she'd get some attention by pressing charges.

Quote from: Annwyn on November 24, 2008, 04:25:53 AM

Quote from: whatsername on November 24, 2008, 12:38:44 AM
Um. WHAT

Lol.

Sounds like she was offering, and he left all professional and moral decency behind and took her up on it.  Then she changed her mind and thought she'd get some attention by pressing charges.

Yep, one could read it that way.

Or one could read it that he saw a situation he could take advantage of due to the volatile nature of BPD and acute suicidality and also probably figured her mental state would give him prophylaxis from prosecution and getting into exactly what he got into: the abuse of his power and position to commit rape (having sex with a person unable to give legal consent to the act.). He pressed his attention, following his penis. She allowed him in; and then in a more lucid state filed a police complaint indicating she was raped.

If she was simply thinking "she'd get some attention by pressing charges" one would imagine that her name would have been used and even commonplace in the location of the report; and that she would not still be anonymous. Anonymity is usually a very poor way to get "attention."

I presume that had he used rufinol in her drink in a club that you might imagine that it would still devolve on her for accepting the drink?  

Our wilingness to dismiss rape as being somehow "her fault" simply allows men like him to imagine that they can continue to behave in this fashion.

Nichole

In addition to being sexual assault, it's also a gross violation of professional ethics. Who better to know she's in a vulnerable state than her doctor?

Dennis

Quote from: Nichole on November 24, 2008, 07:44:19 AM

Quote from: Annwyn on November 24, 2008, 04:25:53 AM

Quote from: whatsername on November 24, 2008, 12:38:44 AM
Um. WHAT

Lol.

Sounds like she was offering, and he left all professional and moral decency behind and took her up on it.  Then she changed her mind and thought she'd get some attention by pressing charges.

Yep, one could read it that way.

Or one could read it that he saw a situation he could take advantage of due to the volatile nature of BPD and acute suicidality and also probably figured her mental state would give him prophylaxis from prosecution and getting into exactly what he got into: the abuse of his power and position to commit rape (having sex with a person unable to give legal consent to the act.). He pressed his attention, following his penis. She allowed him in; and then in a more lucid state filed a police complaint indicating she was raped.

If she was simply thinking "she'd get some attention by pressing charges" one would imagine that her name would have been used and even commonplace in the location of the report; and that she would not still be anonymous. Anonymity is usually a very poor way to get "attention."

I presume that had he used rufinol in her drink in a club that you might imagine that it would still devolve on her for accepting the drink? 

Our wilingness to dismiss rape as being somehow "her fault" simply allows men like him to imagine that they can continue to behave in this fashion.

I'm sorry Nichole, but cases of falsely accusing someone for sexual misconduct seems to be just as large a problem as the original one.  Considering that, facts are what matters, not he said she said and she said he said.  Given that she's already propositioned him, I can't feel too much sympathy for her.  But I completely agree in complete distaste for the doctor, hence the, "left all professional and moral decency."  I could add an attachment of insults but, I think that statement covers it all.  Out of the two people, the doctor is by far the guiltiest.
I was simply pointing out that the, "victim," really isn't that much of a victim considering her actions.  Propositioning him, granting permission of him into her own home after he'd made his intentions clear at the hospital, I mean come on even a druggy can add that up.

"Sir, have you no sense of decency?"

The blame-sharing no doubt seems quite reasonable. Obviously it's been awhile since you were "not rational" due to a mental health condition like mania or dissociation.

Blame-sharing for an act like this in my book, Annwyn, is simply another excuse for saying "she wanted it." That idea is totally reprehensible. We agree on the doctor and I did read that part. Where we disagree is that someone unable to rationally give any sort of consent to the act itself should shoulder a part of the blame for the reprehensible behavior of the man who tried, and at least temporarily succeeded, in misusing his knowledge and his "power" to gratify an urge.

That he "almost certainly" will not continue practicing is perhaps the most astounding part of the aftermath. Would there be any doubt at all?!!

Rape is still viewed as a "double-blame" situation here. That it is is ludicrous, particularly from intelligent human beings and in situations like this.

Nichole

Quote from: Nichole on November 24, 2008, 09:50:05 AM
The blame-sharing no doubt seems quite reasonable. Obviously it's been awhile since you were "not rational" due to a mental health condition like mania or dissociation.

Blame-sharing for an act like this in my book, Annwyn, is simply another excuse for saying "she wanted it." That idea is totally reprehensible. We agree on the doctor and I did read that part. Where we disagree is that someone unable to rationally give any sort of consent to the act itself should shoulder a part of the blame for the reprehensible behavior of the man who tried, and at least temporarily succeeded, in misusing hos knowledge and his "power" to gratify an urge.

That he "almost certainly" will not continue practicing is perhaps the most astounding part of the aftermath. Would there be any doubt at all?!!

Rape is still viewed as a "double-blame" situation here. That it is is ludicrous, particularly from intelligent human beings and in situations like this.

Nichole

He was not convicted of rape, so no rape occurred here for purposes of discussion, unless you'd like to remit on the courts decision and accept that you're more qualified?

I've been in mental hospitals before and I've had my fair share of chemicals before, so please don't act as if I haven't been in any of those situations.  Probably the fact that I have is why I can immediately jump to this conclusion on my part.

How are you supposed to establish when her judgment was more faulty, when she propositioned him/allowed him into her home or when she decided to go press charges?  Furthermore, if drugs were being administered to her to treat mental disorders, how are you to determine in which mental condition she's got better judgment in: the undrugged mentally unstable one or the therapeutic drugged one?

The question of the doctors honor is of no question, as far as I'm concerned he took advantage of a situation that he was supposed to be remedying, twisting to his own sexual gratification.  Not only is that shedding responsibility as a health professional but it's morally indecent as well, I would personally say he should be getting mental treatment as well.  The question of whether to victim is as pitiful as she played off is something else to consider entirely, and there's way too much in the air to immediately dismiss her as being completely innocent whereas he's completely guilty.

Annwyn, go technical in terms of what the conviction was for. Can you actually read the article and find no "rape" regardless of what he was convicted for?

If there comes a day when someone you know or yourself goes through the experience and then the experience of basically having your credibility destroyed afterwards after your body has been violated, then perhaps, you'll find that your easy dismissals are not so easy after all.

Many first-degree murders show convictions for 1) nothing, 2) 2nd-degree murder 3) some variety of manslaughter. Please, yes, in some areas I will absolutely "remit on the court's decision." My only puzzlement right now is why, given your history, you'd think that a dose of medication would effectively change a dissociative or unstable condition within one day.

In all of my years working with people who do take meds the absolute least time tends to be a week or two for meaningful changes to show up in behavior, judgement, etc.

BTW, going to school for a few years never made me an expert in Education. Going to church doesn't make me an expert in religion, etc, etc. And yes, experiencing rape does give me a regard for the woman in this case.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions, but please do not claim some "rational high-ground." having sex with a child or adult who's unable to give consent is a rape, regardless of what the conviction is for.

O, btw, howya feel about OJ? Just asking.

Nichole  

Nichole, I will be PMing you shortly to continue our discussion as we've seriously deviated from original points in the thread.

I will be deleting all deviant posts so they don't elicit further replies, I hope you'll follow suit.

As a rational human being I would ask you to cite just how "Anti-psychotics/anti-seizures such as Haledol and Risperdol have immediate effects.That's not even going into barbituates such as valium, klonopin, or ativan which have very immediate effects." Applies in this case?


Sedating her is basically giving her rufinol and then taking advantage of the fact. None of those drugs "stabilize" a patient's thoughts, they stabilize her bodily reactions and basically sedate her to one or another extent. In a case like this making it more likely that she was amenable to being raped. Laccdaisical about it even.

Surely you're not suggesting that should be a non-factor in the discussion, are you?
 
You have your ideas and are, of course, entitled to them. *shrug*


Nichole

And you've also your ideas about a "relevant" discussion of rape? That you find my posts to be "unrelated" simply puzzles me. But, as you will.

 few questions I'd like you to think on for me:

During rough sex, when does the woman who's been playfighting it and saying no ACTUALLY start fighting it and meaning, "no?"
During extreme sub/dom activities, when does the consent given prior to the activity become negligible and the submissive party become a victim of being an unwilling participant of abuse or rape?

In the above two situations, who is guilty?

When a woman who willingly takes drugs and submits consent under the influence of those drugs is taken on the basis of her consent, assuming the man played no part in administering or advising those drugs, why should she be able to claim rape?


You're not the only one who's been the victim here, more than once either.  So as far as all those posts earlier about me not knowing what it's like or this or that, those won't even be further considered in this discussion.


Very few drugs have to build up to a level in the blood, a therapeutic threshold.  Lithium, Lexapro, a few other SSRI's.  Most drugs, especially the stronger ones like valium, haledol, klonopin, risperdol, manifest themselves immediately.  I would be weary of discussing pharmaceuticals with a pharmacy student and not getting it handed to you (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileys%2Fsusans%2Fwink.gif&hash=0a5a82ff4477280fea219b0d952f3e8272877b74)   Your, "rufinol," or rather Rohypnol, is not used by medical institutions for the purpose of sedation, if it is then that's an off label use for it and a possible case for malpractice right there.


Now, we are to presume that rape occurred when he pled not guilty and she accused him?  I mean jeez, I know it's splitting hairs here but when you're going to take the word of a hospitalized, mentally unstable woman over a licensed MD, evidence has to be considered.  The dude was 53, assuming he got his degree at a late age of 35, that's still 18 years of practicing right there with a clean record. 

QuoteSedating her is basically giving her rufinol and then taking advantage of the fact. None of those drugs "stabilize" a patient's thoughts, they stabilize her bodily reactions and basically sedate her to one or another extent. In a case like this making it more likely that she was amenable to being raped. Laccdaisical about it even.

You still haven't supported your theory as to her deliberate intoxication by him one bit.

Quote
And you've also your ideas about a "relevant" discussion of rape? That you find my posts to be "unrelated" simply puzzles me. But, as you will.

Relevant discussion of rape always needs to consider that the defendant might just be innocent.

Nichole, having fun yet?

Annwyn, don't take the ban bait.

Quote from: Ashtara on November 24, 2008, 11:05:58 AM
Nichole, having fun yet?

Annwyn, don't take the ban bait.

Hiyah Kelley.

You sure came back around quickly enough.

Might as well say my goodbyes right now, as I doubt you'll be around much longer.

Quote from: Nichole on November 24, 2008, 07:44:19 AM
Our wilingness to dismiss rape as being somehow "her fault" simply allows men like him to imagine that they can continue to behave in this fashion.

Nichole

And our willingness to believe that simply allows men to get automatically blamed for every situation in which the word rape is so much as whispered without being given a fair chance, as well as condoning the life-destroying witchtrials that inevitably take place as a result.

There are two sides to every story, Nichole, and I assure you, men live in as much fear of being accused of rape unfairly as women do of being raped. Both are an unfair, psychological assault, and both can ruin a life with no possibility of protecting yourself against it.

If a woman *were* to decide she has changed her mind right after sex, and claim it was rape, the man simply wouldn't stand a chance, he would be judged by everyone as guilty simply because men are easier to hate and look down on. And let's be honest, a situation like that *could* easily take place.

For you to look at that situation and pressume upon how it happened is no different than someone pressuming that it was, in fact, her fault. The only difference is you feel righteous for your presumption - neither speculation is really treating the situation fairly or without some kind of bias.

And just to play devil's advocate, I imagine that she *would* want to remain anonymous even if this were a stunt. She probably wouldn't want to draw attention to the fact that she is transgendered, and rather than publicity, she might simply have been aiming for a settlement.

Consider all angles before you come to a conclusion, and if after that there is no fair conclusion to make, then don't make any.


Truth Seeker

Quote from: Annwyn on November 24, 2008, 11:02:18 AM
 few questions I'd like you to think on for me:

During rough sex, when does the woman who's been playfighting it and saying no ACTUALLY start fighting it and meaning, "no?"
During extreme sub/dom activities, when does the consent given prior to the activity become negligible and the submissive party become a victim of being an unwilling participant of abuse or rape?

In the above two situations, who is guilty?

When a woman who willingly takes drugs and submits consent under the influence of those drugs is taken on the basis of her consent, assuming the man played no part in administering or advising those drugs, why should she be able to claim rape?


You're not the only one who's been the victim here, more than once either.  So as far as all those posts earlier about me not knowing what it's like or this or that, those won't even be further considered in this discussion.


Very few drugs have to build up to a level in the blood, a therapeutic threshold.  Lithium, Lexapro, a few other SSRI's.  Most drugs, especially the stronger ones like valium, haledol, klonopin, risperdol, manifest themselves immediately.  I would be weary of discussing pharmaceuticals with a pharmacy student and not getting it handed to you (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileys%2Fsusans%2Fwink.gif&hash=0a5a82ff4477280fea219b0d952f3e8272877b74)   Your, "rufinol," or rather Rohypnol, is not used by medical institutions for the purpose of sedation, if it is then that's an off label use for it and a possible case for malpractice right there.


Now, we are to presume that rape occurred when he pled not guilty and she accused him?  I mean jeez, I know it's splitting hairs here but when you're going to take the word of a hospitalized, mentally unstable woman over a licensed MD, evidence has to be considered.  The dude was 53, assuming he got his degree at a late age of 35, that's still 18 years of practicing right there with a clean record. 

QuoteSedating her is basically giving her rufinol and then taking advantage of the fact. None of those drugs "stabilize" a patient's thoughts, they stabilize her bodily reactions and basically sedate her to one or another extent. In a case like this making it more likely that she was amenable to being raped. Laccdaisical about it even.

You still haven't supported your theory as to her deliberate intoxication by him one bit.

Quote
And you've also your ideas about a "relevant" discussion of rape? That you find my posts to be "unrelated" simply puzzles me. But, as you will.

Relevant discussion of rape always needs to consider that the defendant might just be innocent.

Yes, there are times that the defendant is, no doubt, innocent, and should be adjudged so. This just doesn't seem to be one of those times.

The fact of his relative position and her relative sanity has probably already gotten him a lesser sentence than you or Kelley would have recived in the same situation.

Yes, I am aware that Rohypnol has no medical usages at present. Did I suggest he'd used it. I compared a number of possible sedative choices with that drug. Smart girl you are, you are aware of that. The fact remains she was sedated to some extent when he came to the home, which was, of course, sleazy response number two.

Sedation and a change of "thought" are two unconnected things. Giving you a Valium doesn't do anything much more than relaxing you, or, if I give you enough it'll also addict you. Those Anxiety meds work on the basis of narcotic sedation and are used primarily as ways to treat a symptom and not what underlies the symptom. I believe you are also aware of that.

Like you said and I agreed with, the guy's a sleaze. His social standing relative to a formerly hospitalized and decidedly still unstable person doesn't make him in any way innocent. In fact, from a professional perspective it makes him even more guilty.

Nichole

@ Truth Seeker:
Your even-handed approach is quite appreciated. Although is probably not relavant in any way to criminal justice. To sieve through every possible reason and explanation for an act and to make, in doing so, a case that a sleazy act, somehow deserves understanding or a rehearsal of possibilities as to why the perp could be innocent seems to be a matter for his attorney.


I suppose I am not much "even-handed" when it comes to rape or to other violations of an individual's body.


As for "men getting blamed for rape?" OK, you have stats on how many women rape men? or other women? I have at least one friend who was drugged and raped by another woman.

She didn't find it as absolutely brutal as was her rape by a man, but she does have a problem with unconsenting sex, even if it's a woman.

To read some of this is basically, to me, to read any number of "reasons" why rape doesn't occur at all. It's just guys getting blamed for things they don't do.



I have some real problems with that kind of "rationality."  
Nichole

Quote from: Annwyn on November 24, 2008, 11:02:18 AMDuring rough sex, when does the woman who's been playfighting it and saying no ACTUALLY start fighting it and meaning, "no?"

When she actually starts fighting and means no.

QuoteDuring extreme sub/dom activities, when does the consent given prior to the activity become negligible and the submissive party become a victim of being an unwilling participant of abuse or rape?

When the Dom ignores the safe word.  Which is exactly why BDSMers use a safe word.

QuoteIn the above two situations, who is guilty?

The person who doesn't stop when their partner alters their participation or ignores their safe word.  I'm sorry but there is a marked difference in people that any half way decent partner can feel or read when they are not into it, or mean it when they say no.

QuoteWhen a woman who willingly takes drugs and submits consent under the influence of those drugs is taken on the basis of her consent, assuming the man played no part in administering or advising those drugs, why should she be able to claim rape?

If a woman was raped she was raped.  I don't even understand your question.  Why "should" she be able to "claim" rape?  What "should" she "claim" if she is raped besides that she is?

QuoteNow, we are to presume that rape occurred when he pled not guilty and she accused him?

Why would we presume he's not guilty because he says so?

Quotethe word of a hospitalized, mentally unstable woman over a licensed MD, evidence has to be considered.

This is exactly why some men pick suicidal women and trans women for their victims.  They know they have access to them because "who will believe you over me".  I see absolutely no reason to trust a licensed MD over a mentally unstable woman, specifically because there is a pattern we can see throughout history of men with power over women abusing it, doctors especially.

QuoteYou still haven't supported your theory as to her deliberate intoxication by him one bit.

She was in the hospital receiving treatment for a slashed wrist, you really don't think she was heavily medicated?  And that the doctor knew this and took advantage of her confused and vulnerable state?

Quote from: truth seekerThere are two sides to every story, Nichole, and I assure you, men live in as much fear of being accused of rape unfairly as women do of being raped.

That's an incredible generalization, and in my experience quite false.  Most men don't ever even consider that this could happen to them.  I say that as a wife of a man falsely accused of rape. ;)

QuoteIf a woman *were* to decide she has changed her mind right after sex, and claim it was rape, the man simply wouldn't stand a chance, he would be judged by everyone as guilty simply because men are easier to hate and look down on.

For every one time that this happens there are fifty more cases like in Santa Barbara a couple years ago of multiple witnesses to a gang rape where all the rapists have their charges dismissed.

QuoteFor you to look at that situation and pressume upon how it happened is no different than someone pressuming that it was, in fact, her fault.

For us to look at a man who was convicted of a crime against this woman is the same as presuming with no evidence one way or the other?  How?

Quote from: whatsername on November 24, 2008, 11:29:20 AM
That's an incredible generalization, and in my experience quite false.  Most men don't ever even consider that this could happen to them.  I say that as a wife of a man falsely accused of rape. ;)

Well yes it was a generalization, I was deliberately being general, didn't think I would be taken that literally. :P In the same sense, not *all* woman walk around scared of being raped, I'm sure. I just meant that being accused of rape is pretty much as scary to men as the prospect of being raped is to women.

Let's use some common sense shall we. :P You don't need to take every word literally, just try to understand the message that's being sent.

Quote
For every one time that this happens there are fifty more cases like in Santa Barbara a couple years ago of multiple witnesses to a gang rape where all the rapists have their charges dismissed.

Exactly, and the sheer likelyhood of that makes the latter situation even less likely to be recognized, don't you think?

My case is not that every case of rape is a false alarm, or even the opposite, all I'm saying is that any kind of uninformed presumption either way could ruin lives.

Quote
For us to look at a man who was convicted of a crime against this woman is the same as presuming with no evidence one way or the other?  How?

Okay, that was badly worded, fair enough. :P

What I meant is that for us to assume -conviction aside- that he did do it is no different than someone assuming he did not do it, and taking the biassed attitude that Nichole was protesting against. I was merely pointing out that it works both ways, we shouldn't make any assumptions.


Truth Seeker

Quote from: Truth Seeker on November 24, 2008, 11:42:02 AM

Quote from: whatsername on November 24, 2008, 11:29:20 AM
That's an incredible generalization, and in my experience quite false.  Most men don't ever even consider that this could happen to them.  I say that as a wife of a man falsely accused of rape. ;)

Well yes it was a generalization, I was deliberately being general, didn't think I would be taken that literally. :P In the same sense, not *all* woman walk around scared of being raped, I'm sure. I just meant that being accused of rape is pretty much as scary to men as the prospect of being raped is to women.
 
Let's use some common sense shall we. :P You don't need to take every word literally, just try to understand the message that's being sent.

Quote
For every one time that this happens there are fifty more cases like in Santa Barbara a couple years ago of multiple witnesses to a gang rape where all the rapists have their charges dismissed.

Exactly, and the sheer likelyhood of that makes the latter situation even less likely to be recognized, don't you think?
 
My case is not that every case of rape is a false alarm, or even the opposite, all I'm saying is that any kind of uninformed presumption either way could ruin lives.

Quote
For us to look at a man who was convicted of a crime against this woman is the same as presuming with no evidence one way or the other?  How?

Okay, that was badly worded, fair enough. :P
 
What I meant is that for us to assume -conviction aside- that he did do it is no different than someone assuming he did not do it, and taking the biassed attitude that Nichole was protesting against. I was merely pointing out that it works both ways, we shouldn't make any assumptions.
 
 
Truth Seeker

 

Does a rape "ruin a life?"


I also disagree that most men worry about being accused of rape as there are women worry about being raped. Where do you find any evidence of that? Rape statistics are certainly not in your favor. Evidently all sorts of guys "think" they will get away with it.
What "assumption" is being made here, Truth Seeker? That's the real problem I am having understanding what you've written.


TBH, guys can often seem much more "logical and rational" about rape simply because it's not in their minds that they'll ever experience it. Doncha think?


The "objective observer" stance can be really nice when one doesn't have a dog in the fight. That hardly makes the observer "objective" though. It simply makes him immune to the experience, at least in his own thoughts.

Nichole

Quote from: whatsername on November 24, 2008, 11:29:20 AM
When she actually starts fighting and means no.

And that is to be determined by the male, how?

Quote
When the Dom ignores the safe word.  Which is exactly why BDSMers use a safe word.

And that is to said when the sub is gagged, as could well be the case in more extreme BDSM thingy cases?

QuoteIf a woman was raped she was raped.  I don't even understand your question.  Why "should" she be able to "claim" rape?  What "should" she "claim" if she is raped besides that she is?

If a woman wasn't raped, she wasn't raped.  Christ what constitutes rape when the victim is intoxicated and gives consent, just pretend you're in a debate here.

Quote
Why would we presume he's not guilty because he says so?

On the same basis that we would assume he is guilty just because she says so.

Quote
She was in the hospital receiving treatment for a slashed wrist, you really don't think she was heavily medicated?  And that the doctor knew this and took advantage of her confused and vulnerable state?

I've been in hospitals for slashed wrists quite a few times, with the pictures to prove it.
You're not sedated.
Local anesthesia is applied and you're stitched up.  Then you sit around in a room for a few days with a security guard right outside your door until you get shipped off to a mental institution.  Boredom is the sedative.

Quote from: truth seeker
Most men don't ever even consider that this could happen to them.

In your own words, "That's an incredible generalization, and in my experience quite false."

Quote
For every one time that this happens there are fifty more cases like in Santa Barbara a couple years ago of multiple witnesses to a gang rape where all the rapists have their charges dismissed.

We're not discussing those cases.  We're discussing THIS case.  Please address the original quote accordingly then.

Quote
For us to look at a man who was convicted of a crime against this woman is the same as presuming with no evidence one way or the other?  How?

Because it's she said he said or he said she said until certain things can be established to support what she said he said, such as witnesses that he was at her house, phone records of him calling her, medical examinations proving that she was indeed penetrated(which obviously turned negative considering the worst he was convicted of was digital rape).

Quote from: Truth Seeker on November 24, 2008, 11:42:02 AMIn the same sense, not *all* woman walk around scared of being raped, I'm sure.

... Yes we do.

Not every minute of every day mind you, but you would be hard pressed to find a woman who hasn't feared being raped multiple times in her life.  It crosses our minds all the time and is something we actively and thoroughly learn to protect ourselves against.

QuoteExactly, and the sheer likelyhood of that makes the latter situation even less likely to be recognized, don't you think?

I don't think I understand what you mean here.  My point of the Santa Barbara case is that real rapes happen in astronomical numbers next to false accusations, so the assumption that, or at the very least defense of, a woman who says she is raped actually was is really quite fair.

Now cops, sure, they shouldn't make any assumptions, they should be gathering evidence before making accusations, and sure, juries, they should be waiting to hear evidence before deciding things.  But an audience like us?  Especially in the case of this story?

This kind of feels to me like everyone has reached an empass and the arguments are just going back and forth. 

Why not take a deep breath and move on to something else?

Sarah L.

Quote from: whatsername on November 24, 2008, 11:50:55 AM
I don't think I understand what you mean here.  My point of the Santa Barbara case is that real rapes happen in astronomical numbers next to false accusations, so the assumption that, or at the very least defense of, a woman who says she is raped actually was is really quite fair.

That is well made up for by the consequences I believe. 

Men have that on their record for life, convicted or not.

Women don't even get charged for purgery. 

Ann, when's the last time you were at a group where only rape victims were present? The effects last far longer than you might believe.

That is the truth. And I think you may well be aware of it. A permanent record and an indelible mark on a psyche are very different.

Nichole


I wish I could find it in me to add smiles and shrugs to that response as it was meant to be "quiet" not accusatory in any way. I just couldn't find the emoticons that would fit it. :icon_hug:


N~

Quote from: Annwyn on November 24, 2008, 11:48:38 AMAnd that is to be determined by the male, how?

By being an attentive lover.  You're in the middle of an intimate act, you can feel the changes in the body language of a person rather easily.  My husband has certainly noticed any time I've stopped being into it or gotten distracted, and the same for me.

QuoteAnd that is to said when the sub is gagged, as could well be the case in more extreme BDSM thingy cases?

In that case there is a safety gesture.  BDSMers are meticulous in making sure continued consent can be obtained.  It's absolutely necessary when you're playing on the edge of abuse like that.  Those who don't make absolutely certain of these things are the rare abuser using BDSM for an excuse to gain access to victims.  Ask anyone who is in the lifestyle.

Quotewhat constitutes rape when the victim is intoxicated and gives consent

It depends on the level of intoxication.  At some point you quite simply CAN'T give consent, you're just not in any condition to do so.  I mean I love drunken sex as much as the next person but there is a line that quite simply has to be respected.  And if you don't know the partner you might be taking to bed, you shouldn't be having sex with them if they're falling down drunk!  It's just a terrible idea all around.

QuoteOn the same basis that we would assume he is guilty just because she says so.

I'm simply assuming the story is accurate.  He was convicted of misconduct.  Quite clearly he did something wrong and unfortunately the story is lacking in details.  But the fact is we're not assuming anything, he was convicted.  Why he wasn't also convicted of the rape isn't detailed, but we know he abused this patient.

QuoteYou're not sedated.

But surely that's not the only way to be vulnerable?

Quote

Quote from: whatsername
Most men don't ever even consider that this could happen to them.

In your own words, "That's an incredible generalization, and in my experience quite false."

Fortunately I qualified my statement with "In my experience" and again "as the wife of a man falsely accused of rape".  Also while truth seeker simply said "men" I said "most men", thereby recognizing it is not a universal truth, which is where my criticism of his statement was based.

QuoteWe're not discussing those cases.  We're discussing THIS case.  Please address the original quote accordingly then.

What quote?  The "fear men have" of being falsley accused of rape?  If all we're discussing is this case I don't see how it's even relevant, this man was convicted of abusing his patient.  Obviously he didn't have any such fear, he had designs on actually sexually assaulting this woman.

QuoteBecause it's she said he said or he said she said until certain things can be established to support what she said he said, such as witnesses that he was at her house, phone records of him calling her, medical examinations proving that she was indeed penetrated(which obviously turned negative considering the worst he was convicted of was digital rape).

He was convicted by a jury.  I'm quite certain at that point we can safely stop "assuming" guilty and simply be acknowledging it.

I also find "the worst he was convicted of" to be an appaling statement.  As if the violation of her body is somehow not as important because it was "just" his fingers?

Were we actually on the jury I'm sure we would have more details like the tests done etc.  As it is, we have their decision.  Which was to convict this doctor of sexually assaulting this woman.

*edit* If a man is cleared of charges he is cleared.  Women live with the consequences of assault of the rest of our lives.  He can start over.  And while the after effects from assault differ from woman to woman, for many of us they are indeed life long and dramatic.  I've never understood the comparison, personally.

Quote from: Nichole on November 24, 2008, 12:03:04 PM
Ann, when's the last time you were at a group where only rape victims were present? The effects last far longer than you might believe.

That is the truth. And I think you may well be aware of it. A permanent record and an indelible mark on a psyche are very different.

Nichole

I quite disagree.

As a rape victim myself, I can tell you it doesn't invade my conscious thought too much.  I get night terrors, everytime I spend the night with a friend or a lover I'm told I am saying the same things I said that time and struggling around in the sheets.

If I were accused of a sex crime however, every parent in the neighborhood could google that I was a, "sex offender," and keep their kids away from me, exclude me from the community, and pervade many aspects of my life on a daily basis.

Granted I've never been accused of something like that, I imagine the shame would be intolerable, and no matter where you went in the USA it would be inescapable as well.  I grew up in a neighborhood where bulletins were passed out to parents identifying sex offenders so us kids could be, "kept away" from them.  People who first moved in and were as friendly as could be turned sour from the constant judgment and hatred passed onto them.  They could once be seen doing yard work every day and then all you saw were weeds growing in their yard.

Living in eternal pain is bad.  I can get away from it when I'm not reminded.  I choose the movies I own carefully, I remember watching Billy Jack just about killed me inside.  Just a film where a woman gets assaulted in a back alley and is suddenly saved by Spiderman or Ghost Rider or whatever is too much stimulus for me, but I can live with it and still find a way to smile everyday like most of us.

Now try reversing it from pain, to shame for a crime that was never committed.  To having to live a, "lesser" life all because a woman pointed her finger and cried wolf.  I don't even know how I would begin to cope.

Quote from: Nichole on November 24, 2008, 11:48:05 AM
Does a rape "ruin a life?"

I said "could".

Could it? Most definitely.

Quote from: Nichole on November 24, 2008, 11:48:05 AMI also disagree that most men worry about being accused of rape as there are women worry about being raped. Where do you find any evidence of that?

I said the idea of being accused is as scary to men, I didn't say most men actively worry about it.

Please make an effort to respond to what I say, not what you are expecting to hear.

Quote from: Nichole on November 24, 2008, 11:48:05 AMRape statistics are certainly not in your favor. Evidently all sorts of guys "think" they will get away with it.

Those would be rapists, my dear, not men. I'm talking about non-rapists being posed with the fear of being judged by the standards set BY rapists.

In other words, what you just did.

Case and point.

Quote from: Nichole on November 24, 2008, 11:48:05 AMWhat "assumption" is being made here, Truth Seeker? That's the real problem I am having understanding what you've written.

Perhaps that's my fault, maybe I didn't word it properly. What I was trying to say is this; in response to someone who said it looks like she faked the rape, you posted expressing your disaproval of this kind of assumption, and how it victimized and dismisses real rape victims, yes?

But in the same reply, you appeared to be making the same kind of assumption about the doctor, assuming that he was definitely guilty, in the same way that the other person assumed that she was faking it. I was trying to point out the double standard being expressed by that particular assumption.

Quote from: Nichole on November 24, 2008, 11:48:05 AMTBH, guys can often seem much more "logical and rational" about rape simply because it's not in their minds that they'll ever experience it. Doncha think?

Undoubtedly. Though this does not negate the rationality itself.

Quote from: Nichole on November 24, 2008, 11:48:05 AMThe "objective observer" stance can be really nice when one doesn't have a dog in the fight. That hardly makes the observer "objective" though. It simply makes him immune to the experience, at least in his own thoughts.

Nichole

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that men are not qualified to comment on the female fear of rape? If that is the case, then you are proving my point for me. Because all I was trying to say is that it works both ways, and females cannot comment on the male fear of being accused of rape - as you did quite blatantly in this very post. :)

Whether you assume the woman was just faking it, or that the man is automatically guilty, you're still making an assumption. Now from your perspective, you are not in a position to recognize the kind of damage that assumption can do to the man, just as I am not in a position to understand the harm that could come from assuming the woman was just faking it.

Now I am not making either of those assumptions... are you?

Quote from: whatsername on November 24, 2008, 11:50:55 AM

Quote from: Truth Seeker on November 24, 2008, 11:42:02 AMIn the same sense, not *all* woman walk around scared of being raped, I'm sure.

... Yes we do.

You mean you do. If you don't want other people to generalize, why do you do so?

Not all women walk around afraid of being raped, I know this because I know many strong hearted women who don't identify themselves as being that weak or helpless.

Quote from: whatsername on November 24, 2008, 11:50:55 AMNot every minute of every day mind you, but you would be hard pressed to find a woman who hasn't feared being raped multiple times in her life.  It crosses our minds all the time and is something we actively and thoroughly learn to protect ourselves against.

In the same way, I guarantee you that the fear of being falsely accused has crossed every man's mind at some point. Why do you think we have this engrained tradition of asking "do you want it" before we begin?

What exactly is seperating your claim from mine? Women fear rape, men fear accusal of rape. Not permanently for either case, but it is definitely something that both are wary of, and the damage of being raped/accused of rape is immeasurable in either scenario.

So by what means do you object to me saying that assumption either way is a negative thing?

Quote from: whatsername on November 24, 2008, 11:50:55 AM

QuoteExactly, and the sheer likelyhood of that makes the latter situation even less likely to be recognized, don't you think?

I don't think I understand what you mean here.  My point of the Santa Barbara case is that real rapes happen in astronomical numbers next to false accusations, so the assumption that, or at the very least defense of, a woman who says she is raped actually was is really quite fair.

And what I was saying is that THAT assumption, which is made by most females, makes it virtually impossible for a male who actually IS innocent to be given a fair trial. No assumption has any place in a situation like this, you never know whose life could be ruined as a result, even if you are ignorant to that possibility.

Quote from: whatsername on November 24, 2008, 11:50:55 AMNow cops, sure, they shouldn't make any assumptions, they should be gathering evidence before making accusations, and sure, juries, they should be waiting to hear evidence before deciding things.  But an audience like us?  Especially in the case of this story?

The audience can be the harshest judge and jury, we're the ones who form the mobs, the witchhunts, the inhospitable communities that will make the person's life miserable. You're on a TG forum for god's sake, surely you can appreciate the harm that a prejudicial and judgmental crowd can do?


Truth Seeker

Annwyn, you are incorrect on the consequences of a conviction.

My husband is a registered sex offender due to his false accusation.

He can NOT be looked up on those databases.  He could NEVER have been, even when the charges were fresh.

This is because there are different levels of sex offenses.  The vast majority of them cannot simply be looked up on those databases, only the high levels charges can.  In fact I don't know if this doctor would even qualify for that list here.  And California has some of the most severe sex offender laws.

Also, passing out bulletins as you describe is illegal here.

Quote from: whatsername on November 24, 2008, 12:16:03 PM
This is because there are different levels of sex offenses.  The vast majority of them cannot simply be looked up on those databases, only the high levels charges can.  In fact I don't know if this doctor would even qualify for that list here.  And California has some of the most severe sex offender laws.

Also, passing out bulletins as you describe is illegal here.

Speak for your area, I'm speaking from South Carolina.

Quote from: Truth Seeker on November 24, 2008, 12:12:52 PMYou mean you do. If you don't want other people to generalize, why do you do so?

My next sentence was vital to the message as a whole.  I don't mean I do.  I mean we as women do.  I am a strong woman too.  I'm not weak or helpless.  But we know very very well what we have to do to protect ourselves, and I gaurantee you the strong women you know make similar concessions as the ones I (and every single other woman cis and trans I know) do to stay so.  You don't have to quiver in fear over something to live with consistent consciousness of it.

QuoteWhy do you think we have this engrained tradition of asking "do you want it" before we begin?

Well, I actually thought that was because some men aren't actually jerks and want to have willing partners...not to stave off a lawsuit.  Silly me?

QuoteWhat exactly is seperating your claim from mine?

Well it's getting off track at this point I suppose, but to try and compare the two fears is just... It doesn't make sense in my experience, they're just not equivalent fears, not by measure of emotion involved or adjustments in ones life made.

QuoteAnd what I was saying is that THAT assumption, which is made by most females, makes it virtually impossible for a male who actually IS innocent to be given a fair trial.

That would make sense if most people made this assumption.  Look at the statistics of rapes reported, rapes estimated to actually happen, rape accusations that go to trial and then convictions had.  The numbers are positively appalling.  And then look at the conversations had around these trials.  For every me and Nichole, willing to believe a victim, there's two others willing to blame her.  I've had this conversation many times.  Sometimes I'm vastly out numbered by folks casting doubt on the victim.

It is very hard to be the "perfect victim" needed to obtain a conviction in the country, generally speaking.  So I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with you, even with my husband's background.

Annwyn, I was speaking for my area, which is why I said "here that is illegal".  But there are different levels of sex offenses in every state.  Please feel free to tells us what the laws of your state are.  Or maybe I'll go Wiki them and bring back some national comparisons.

But California is nationally known to be notoriously harsh on it's sex offenders, so it's generally a pretty decent measuring stick.

TS, I appreciate your "even-handed" and "rational" take on something like rape or molestation or anything of that sort.

But, I also find that you sometimes "do" the very things you say whatername and I should not do.

A certain god-like distance may be a nice trope to bandy about, but, as we see from Annwyn, even someone willing to give the extra bit has experienced the fact of a rape, or maybe more than one, can exist, but still doesn't make her anymore "rational" about the question than the other two of us.

"Are you saying that men are not qualified to comment on the female fear of rape? If that is the case, then you are proving my point for me. Because all I was trying to say is that it works both ways, and females cannot comment on the male fear of being accused of rape - as you did quite blatantly in this very post."

In your "rationality" you do make exactly an assumption: that being that some sort of totally objective pov exists among human beings.  I am not "reading" your "rationality" as rationality, I'm reading it as simply cogitating about an experience you've never had and making some fairly breath-taking assumptions yourself about the frequency that men are "falsely accused" of rape. And how to try and balance those against the very real incidence of rapes, at least in many parts of the world.  
 
"Whether you assume the woman was just faking it, or that the man is automatically guilty, you're still making an assumption. Now from your perspective, you are not in a position to recognize the kind of damage that assumption can do to the man, just as I am not in a position to understand the harm that could come from assuming the woman was just faking it.
 
"Now I am not making either of those assumptions... are you?"


In point of fact, I am making an assumption. I am "assuming" that the jury had at least one member who was as "rational" as you are being here. They discussed relative veracity and the previous instability of the victim and that she was trans. They also discussed the relative social standing of the "poor doctor."

 
Consequently, a "no-true" rape verdict was on the cards. I do this in absence of the facts about this single case, but in a plethora of facts about the cases of real women I have worked with and shared groups with.


I'll own that "rationality" is not my gut-response to rape and that I am not likely in many cases to be able to "abstract" my own experience from my decisions. But, I'd also maintain that neither can you. Your "rationality" is simply as much a part of how you are inclined to view the topic as is my "experience" of something you've not experienced.


They are both, in that regard "poses" of a human nature that simply don't partake of a cold Minervan concept of "truth and justice." Fact is "justice" consistently has her blindfold held up so she can see.


Nichole

Annwyn, if you're interested in the legalities there is a helpful article here: http://www.freewebs.com/adamshajnfeld/article.htm (http://www.freewebs.com/adamshajnfeld/article.htm)

Section III seems to pertain to what we're talking about.  The three tiered system is what CA has, and not all three tiers are published through Megan's Law, which is what I was talking about in my post originally, but I wasn't positive if that was state or national.  It is in fact a national database. 

You were correct that leafletting is apparently still legal rather widely, which personally I find appalling, but there it is.

Quote from: Nichole on November 24, 2008, 12:32:18 PM
In point of fact, I am making an assumption. I am "assuming" that the jury had at least one member who was as "rational" as you are being here. They discussed relative veracity and the previous instability of the victim and that she was trans. They also discussed the relative social standing of the "poor doctor."

A really good point.
However, I really don't have faith in society to be as rational as you would have us believe regarding rape.  It's a touchy subject.
Regardless, it's a really good point.

So, I've skipped half my lectures today to keep arguing this topic and reminding myself of my pain in some twisted self-punishment or something, I don't know.  Either way, I really need to withdraw for the sake of my own sanity.
You guys have fun figuring this stuff out.

I'm sorry, Ann, but "It's a touchy subject." :) would be funny in another context. It almost rises to that level for me here. Yes, dear, it is a "touchy subject" as would be shown by your own responses to it in your dreams and other things you've mentioned.

That was some understatement! :)

N~
And yes, leaf-letting does take place. I have a neighbor who walks aroud the complex monthly passing them out.


And I've also had clients who were of Megan's Law offenses (one case regarded a guy who'd had sex with 17 yr, 10 mos individual) who even in the Cat 1 area was "outted" ruthlessly. He'd been 19 when he had sex with the girl.


So, I am aware that what I would consider abuses do take place. And that in some areas what the state allows or doesn't is rather a moot point since all state jurisdictions aren't the same. The neighbor's leaflets come from a New Jersey site that prints everyone.


Nichole

*channels her inner-Hermione*

Skipping class for this?!

The horror!

Dispite the rather entertaining dialog here, he was the doctor, she was the patient. That makes what he did a crime, reguardless of solicitation.

Also, please, don't make assumptions because of a lack of rape conviction. I don't know about Australia, but in Texas you cannot be charged with rape if the victim is an MtF.

Really good point Lisbeth.  The part the authority of a doctor played and the inherent power relations involved is really a vital part of why this was so wrong.

Quote from: whatsername on November 24, 2008, 12:28:25 PM
My next sentence was vital to the message as a whole.  I don't mean I do.  I mean we as women do.  I am a strong woman too.  I'm not weak or helpless.  But we know very very well what we have to do to protect ourselves, and I gaurantee you the strong women you know make similar concessions as the ones I (and every single other woman cis and trans I know) do to stay so.  You don't have to quiver in fear over something to live with consistent consciousness of it.

Well as I said, at some point or another all guys undoubtedly feel a chill at the thought of being falsely accused. I mistook your point to be that woman feel afraid of rape all the time, my mistake. :)

Quote from: whatsername on November 24, 2008, 12:28:25 PM

QuoteWhy do you think we have this engrained tradition of asking "do you want it" before we begin?

Well, I actually thought that was because some men aren't actually jerks and want to have willing partners...not to stave off a lawsuit.  Silly me?

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.

Quote from: whatsername on November 24, 2008, 12:28:25 PM
Well it's getting off track at this point I suppose, but to try and compare the two fears is just... It doesn't make sense in my experience, they're just not equivalent fears, not by measure of emotion involved or adjustments in ones life made.

And yet you just finished telling me that I cannot possibly understand the female fear of rape. 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?

This is beginning to annoy me, because you are expressing nothing more than a typical femenistic dismissal of men's feelings. You think that just because you have to deal with the fear of being vulnerable that men could never feel anything close to that.

Don't you see the hypocrisy of that position? I can't claim to understand the female fear, nor am I allowed to dismiss it, but somehow you're allowed to do just that to men?

Being falsely accused can ruin men's lives, and bring raped can be just as destructive to females. So what you're really saying here, if you must insist on disagreeing with me, is that female lives are more important than male lives. Think about that, and ask yourself if that really is fair.

Quote from: whatsername on November 24, 2008, 12:28:25 PMThat would make sense if most people made this assumption.  Look at the statistics of rapes reported, rapes estimated to actually happen, rape accusations that go to trial and then convictions had.  The numbers are positively appalling.  And then look at the conversations had around these trials.  For every me and Nichole, willing to believe a victim, there's two others willing to blame her.  I've had this conversation many times.  Sometimes I'm vastly out numbered by folks casting doubt on the victim.

That has simply not been my experience, so perhaps the argument is moot. In my experience, the very mention of the word rape inspires total dismissal of the man, and total sympathy for the woman regardless of the facts. 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.

Quote from: whatsername on November 24, 2008, 12:28:25 PMIt is very hard to be the "perfect victim" needed to obtain a conviction in the country, generally speaking.  So I'm sorry, but I just don't agree with you, even with my husband's background.

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?

This is not about me arguing the frequency of that event, I'm *not* trying to say that men are falsely accused more than woman are genuinely raped, and I'm *not* trying to say that that women are always treated better than men in this situation, what I *am* saying is that assuming the man is guilty is no better than assuming the woman is faking it.

It's the *assumption*, and the double standards therein which I am objecting to. You simply cannot dissaprove of someone for making an assumption when you are going to do the very same thing.

Quote from: Nichole on November 24, 2008, 12:32:18 PM
TS, I appreciate your "even-handed" and "rational" take on something like rape or molestation or anything of that sort.

Hehe, the rest of your post would beg to differ. :P

Quote from: Nichole on November 24, 2008, 12:32:18 PMBut, I also find that you sometimes "do" the very things you say whatername and I should not do.

I certainly don't intend to, please provide examples of my hypocrisy so that I can work on it. :)

Quote from: Nichole on November 24, 2008, 12:32:18 PMIn your "rationality" you do make exactly an assumption: that being that some sort of totally objective pov exists among human beings.  I am not "reading" your "rationality" as rationality, I'm reading it as simply cogitating about an experience you've never had and making some fairly breath-taking assumptions yourself about the frequency that men are "falsely accused" of rape. And how to try and balance those against the very real incidence of rapes, at least in many parts of the world. 

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult but I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say here. The only thing I can discern from that passage is that you seem to think I am arguing that the frequency of false accusations is comparable to the frequency of rapes.

If you had read my posts properly, you would see that this is not the case. I'm only arguing that the assumption that the man is guilty is no less negative or destructive than the assumption that the woman is faking it. Assumptions cause harm, and there is NEVER any excuse or justification for them.

Quote from: Nichole on November 24, 2008, 12:32:18 PMIn point of fact, I am making an assumption. I am "assuming" that the jury had at least one member who was as "rational" as you are being here. They discussed relative veracity and the previous instability of the victim and that she was trans. They also discussed the relative social standing of the "poor doctor."

Again, we're not talking about lawcases and such, we're talking about the dismissal of the man's role in rape accusal.

Quote from: Nichole on November 24, 2008, 12:32:18 PMI'll own that "rationality" is not my gut-response to rape and that I am not likely in many cases to be able to "abstract" my own experience from my decisions. But, I'd also maintain that neither can you. Your "rationality" is simply as much a part of how you are inclined to view the topic as is my "experience" of something you've not experienced.

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.


Assumptions ruin lives. Don't assume that men are automatically guilty, don't assume that women are automatically lying. It's not a competition about who suffers the most, ANY amount of suffering is too much. DON'T ASSUME, that's my only point.


Truth Seeker

Quote from: Truth Seeker on November 24, 2008, 01:10:52 PMI 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.

QuoteWhat 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:

QuoteBeing 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?

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteBut 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.

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. :P 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.

Quote
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

QuoteThe 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? 

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

You too.