Has the #MeToo movement become a witch-hunt to a significant degree?

[SuperLuigi]

Oh, I’ve already done something like that on here with REAL news stories and was accused of advancing Stormfront talking points.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Not exactly, because she’s open to dating and having romantic relationships with men, she’s just cautious, and doesn’t default to assuming that any particular man is a good guy and has her best interests at heart.

Presumably some white people want to be friends with black people too. I guarantee an article like that would not make any friends.

 

[starshiptrooper]

One would hope they would be consistent enough to admit that the villain has a point.

 

[Xantippe]

Some thoughts:

–Remember that there were plenty of people who were quick to argue that Adele was being imprudent and unsafe driving 30 minutes to Shenandoah National Park with her college boyfriend. If anything goes wrong, there’s literally always going to be somebody there to tell you you weren’t careful enough and you should have known better.
–One of the reasons that many women operate at a level of hypervigilance with regard to men is that we are aware that we will be the ones most blamed if anything bad happens to us. The other reason is that many of us have already been victimized, so hypervigilance comes automatically.
–I would say that women are generally pretty good at this pro-active self-defense thing–at least with regard to strangers. A much higher percentage of male homicide victims are killed by strangers than female homicide victims are killed by strangers.
–Bear in mind that Schroedinger’s Rapist is about how many women mentally deal with men who are strangers to them. It’s an initial sorting mechanism where the woman decides whether she’s safe or not with a particular guy under particular circumstances. Ideally, she should revisit the issue at every uptick in privacy and vulnerability in dealing with a particular man. I suspect you probably use a similar process in a vulnerable situation (for example, when doing a large cash Craigslist transaction with a stranger or in a dangerous unfamiliar environment). The difference is that women experience physical vulnerability much more frequently than you do, so we have to do “the math” more habitually.
–The funny thing is that I suspect that the Schroedinger’s Rapist article is roughly how ChunkMonk would encourage women to operate.
–SST, aren’t you actually very suspicious about women? How is Schroedinger’s Rapist any worse than whatever Red Pill sorting mechanism you use for sorting women you’ve just met?
–How are we supposed to treat strange men? Are we supposed to guilelessly drink anything we’re given, take rides with whoever offers, and go for those first date hikes? I can see what you dislike about Schroedinger’s Rapist, but I don’t see a realistic way forward for the average woman. If anything, the average 15-25-year-old would be well-served by being more careful, not less.

 

[Xantippe]

SST’s feelings are an interesting data point, because they suggest that men also suffer from the regime where women are blamed whenever anything happens to us. Under that system, women are motivated to be hypervigilant and extremely wary of strange men–which comes with obvious downsides for single men who are trying to meet women.

No doubt it is very inconvenient for nice single men, but of course that’s the price that men have to pay for making women take the responsibility for rape.

Telling women that they are responsible for their own sexual assaults makes us more wary and less willing to take chances on strange men, which inconveniences men in general–it isn’t some sort of free lunch for men in general. There is, obviously, a subgroup of men who disproportionately benefits from women being blamed for rape, but it’s not men in general.

 

[PetraG]

SST’s feelings are an interesting data point, because they suggest that men also suffer from the regime where women are blamed whenever anything happens to us. Under that system, women are motivated to be hypervigilant and extremely wary of strange men–which comes with obvious downsides for single men who are trying to meet women.

No doubt it is very inconvenient for nice single men, but of course that’s the price that men have to pay for making women take the responsibility for rape.

Telling women that they are responsible for their own sexual assaults makes us more wary and less willing to take chances on strange men, which inconveniences men in general–it isn’t some sort of free lunch for men in general. There is, obviously, a subgroup of men who disproportionately benefits from women being blamed for rape, but it’s not men in general.

The truth is that no matter what decent men do, as many as 4% of people in the US are sociopaths. These people are accomplished liars, charming, without conscience and without empathy. They may even be organically incapable of empathy. What they have learned is that forgiving and trusting people are great targets. Trusting people who believe the best of everyone are their gravy train.

I don’t know what the situation is outside this country, but in this country morals are taught not as “you will be a pariah if you act like that” but rather “how would you feel is someone did that to you?” Well, if you have no organic connection to other human beings, that is a nonsensical question and moral law is a nonsensical concept, a fairytale ready-made for “smart people” to use to con the gullible. They see moral law as a convenient pretense, they think everyone who is not an idiot sees it that way, and that is all.

It is not rational to put one’s trust in someone who has done nothing to earn that trust. If it is true anywhere on this entire planet, it is extremely true here in the US. That is not the fault of decent people who don’t know anyone and want to meet people, but it is the way it is.

“Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves.” Matt. 10:16

Just as sociopaths will try to gaslight their victims into the premise that “you are not any different than I am” when they are caught in a lie, just so it is in their interest to con decent men into believing that they are innocent and the women who complain are all lying about them and are out to lie about all men.

On top of this, there are also women who are sociopaths, women who are also manipulative, charming and adept at gaslighting.

Sociopaths are also spiteful. Just as we have had to learn to protect ourselves by the precautions we take to protect young people from sexual predators, just so we have to accept that we have to be aware that this kind of person is out there. What they hate the most is for the light of day to be shown on their actions.

I wish it weren’t that way, but alas, it is.

 

[Xantippe]

It is not rational to put one’s trust in someone who has done nothing to earn that trust.

Right.

Just as sociopaths will try to gaslight their victims into the premise that “you are not any different than I am” when they are caught in a lie, just so it is in their interest to con decent men into believing that they are innocent and the women who complain are all lying about them and are out to lie about all men.

On top of this, there are also women who are sociopaths, women who are also manipulative, charming and adept at gaslighting.

Right.

If anybody is thinking, “well maybe false accusers are female sociopaths!” that is not at all unlikely. What is astronomically unlikely is that a single innocent man would wind up with a dozen female sociopath false accusers.

 

[PetraG]

If anybody is thinking, “well maybe false accusers are female sociopaths!” that is not at all unlikely. What is astronomically unlikely is that a single innocent man would wind up with a dozen female sociopath false accusers.

Well, a famous man might have any number of false accusations, but it isn’t likely that a single man would cross pathes with that many sociopaths who could tell plausible stories. Possible, that is to be remembered, but not likely.

That means: not enough to put him in jail but quite enough to let someone else venture out on dates with him.

 

[Xantippe]

Well, a famous man might have any number of false accusations, but it isn’t likely that a single man would cross pathes with that many sociopaths who could tell plausible stories. P

For one thing, you’d need to be able to demonstrate that you were in the same place at the same time–which is not trivial.

Given modern technology, totally fake stories are really hard to keep together. As I recall, for the Duke Lacrosse story, there were issues with a phone call, a taxi ride, an ATM, a card swipe to enter a building, etc–nowadays, we’re constantly doing things that generate an electronic footprint that could support or disprove a particular story.

There was an interesting episode last year where a woman approached the Washington Post with a dramatic story about Roy Moore.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...cbe2af58c3a_story.html?utm_term=.dc745a6e047c

She claimed to have gotten pregnant with Moore’s baby and had an abortion at 15. The Post, which had previously published other accounts of Moore pursuing teenage girls, was skeptical.

“The Post did not publish an article based on her unsubstantiated account. When Post reporters confronted her with inconsistencies in her story and an Internet posting that raised doubts about her motivations, she insisted that she was not working with any organization that targets journalists.”

“Back at the newsroom, Reinhard became concerned about elements of Phillips’s story. Phillips had said she lived in Alabama only for a summer while a teenager, but the cellphone number Phillips provided had an Alabama area code. Reinhard called NFM Lending, the company Phillips said she worked for in Westchester County, but was told no one named Jaime Phillips worked there.”

She was a plant from James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, with the goal of embarrassing the Washington Post by getting them to publish a false story. It didn’t work.

Again, telling plausible, detailed lies is very difficult.

Edited to add: The Post demonstrated that they were not engaged in a witch-hunt by being scrupulous about examining accusations before them into print.

 

[Werbenjagermanjensen]

If anybody is thinking, “well maybe false accusers are female sociopaths!” that is not at all unlikely. What is astronomically unlikely is that a single innocent man would wind up with a dozen female sociopath false accusers.

You have to take into account that the accusations may not be independent of one another statistically but may be influenced by one widely reported accusation or by a lifestyle or trait of the accused.

If multiple women accuse someone of raping them while they were drunk it could simply be that the accused frequently engages in consensual casual sexual encounters while drunk. While multiple women misremembering a drunken sexual encounter is rare so too is serial rape. You would then have to weigh the evidence of two statistically unlikely explanations taking into account things like the lifestyle of the victims and the details of the crime. The number of accusations wouldn’t be enough to convict just based on the statistical probability of multiple accusers.

 

[Xantippe]

You have to take into account that the accusations may not be independent of one another statistically but may be influenced by one widely reported accusation or by a lifestyle or trait of the accused.

If multiple women accuse someone of raping them while they were drunk it could simply be that the accused frequently engages in consensual casual sexual encounters while drunk. While multiple women misremembering a drunken sexual encounter is rare so too is serial rape. You would then have to weigh the evidence of two statistically unlikely explanations taking into account things like the lifestyle of the victims and the details of the crime. The number of accusations wouldn’t be enough to convict just based on the statistical probability of multiple accusers.

Like Petra, I’m not talking about number of accusations justifying conviction (for conviction you need at least one to check out beyond a reasonable doubt), but being enough for the general public to make an informed decision what to think about the case.

I can’t think of any case with a large number of accusers where there was smoke but obviously no fire (setting aside cases with large numbers of preschool children coached into Satanic abuse accusations).

Edited to add: Going back to my previous post about the difficulty of creating and sustaining a false story, I’d like to point out that this is probably what happened with the false rape accusations that SST linked to far, far upthread (I believe it was a Janet Bloomfield piece). As I recall, many of those stories fell apart within 48 hours because of evidence problems. Again, it’s really, really hard to create a false story nowadays, given how many ways there are to get tripped up by electronic data. (See also “Jackie” of UVA.)

But that also works in the other direction, as there are many cases of photos or videos being taken and/or circulated by the perpetrator of sexual assault. Virtually every recent gang rape case I’ve seen recently has involved video being taken and circulated.

 

[PetraG]

…If multiple women accuse someone of raping them while they were drunk it could simply be that the accused frequently engages in consensual casual sexual encounters while drunk. While multiple women misremembering a drunken sexual encounter is rare so too is serial rape…

Making it a habit to get women drunk so as to have a better opportunity to “have one’s way” with them when they cannot protect themselves and are less likely to fight back is by no means rare. The strategy of accusing them of “misremembering” is also not rare. It is so common that I’d say going home with someone you do not know after you have been drinking shows less common sense than flashing a walletful of money when you pay your bill. Compare the cases, and you’re probably more likely to become a date-rape victim than a mugging victim.

If a certiain an had a pattern of taking drunken women home only to find they later claimed he had raped them, the most rational conclusion is that he is choosing drunken partners precisely so that he can disavow their stories about how he acted. Maybe he’s just that thick, but I’d vote on the side of intent, if I were playing odds.

I cannot believe, by the way, that I am on a Catholic web site seeing people actually suggest that someone who makes it his habit to get women drunk and take them home for sex outside of marriage ought to get the benefit of the doubt. How many people here think that this is an OK pattern of behavior? I mean for anyone, Catholic or not? Do these guys also accuse the bar owners of “misremembering” how the drunks were acting when they got thrown out of the bar?

 

[PetraG]

Like Petra, I’m not talking about number of accusations justifying conviction (for conviction you need at least one to check out beyond a reasonable doubt), but being enough for the general public to make an informed decision what to think about the case.

California has a rape law that says that intoxicated people cannot give consent to anyone but a spouse. I don’t think it is such a terrible law. You have to make sure your date is sober and of legal age before you seduce him or her? What a concept! Those who think it is unacceptably inconvenient ought to remember we are talking about drunkenness and sex outside of marriage. Risky behaviors carry risks.

 

[Xantippe]

If a certiain an had a pattern of taking drunken women home only to find they later claimed he had raped them, the most rational conclusion is that he is choosing drunken partners precisely so that he can disavow their stories about how he acted. Maybe he’s just that thick, but I’d vote on the side of intent, if I were playing odds.

Right. See also Bill Cosby.

At some point, the numbers are big enough that it doesn’t look like an innocent mistake anymore.

 

[Werbenjagermanjensen]

California has a rape law that says that intoxicated people cannot give consent to anyone but a spouse. I don’t think it is such a terrible law. You have to make sure your date is sober and of legal age before you seduce him or her? What a concept! Those who think it is unacceptably inconvenient ought to remember we are talking about drunkenness and sex outside of marriage. Risky behaviors carry risks.

So you’re fine with convicting innocent people simply because they were engaging in risky behavior? And we aren’t talking about taking drugs from strangers sort of risk. A couple of margaritas at supper could mean that you’re above 0.08 BAC, legally intoxicated but hardly enough to where you can’t consent. That sort of law would also presumably affect women since they would also have the requirement of determining if their partner is intoxicated.

 

[Xantippe]

Here’s another issue:

Women’s concerns about our personal safety unavoidably conflict with being able to make a living. If women are supposed to be very careful about where we are and when and with whom, we’re going to have to make one of two choices:

a) avoid many jobs (for example if they involve late or very early hours, few female coworkers, isolation, being alone with strangers, inappropriate supervisors)

or

b) accept the risk and the possibility that if anything happens, people will ask, why were you working that job?

So women are potentially faced with either danger or financial hardship, and conceivably both.

I can’t tell you how often I’ve seen manosphere guys ask, “Why aren’t women willing to work XYZ job?” and assume that the reason is that women are lazy, when the likely example is that she’d be the only woman and it wouldn’t be safe.

 

[Xantippe]

So you’re fine with convicting innocent people simply because they were engaging in risky behavior?

Eh, one of the risks involved is that the other person is not actually capable of consent.

I personally find the legal side of the alcohol cases very thorny (not a drinker, so I don’t have any insight into the various stages of intoxication), but I’m on board with the idea that there should be a lot bigger social and moral taboos against sex with someone who is drunk, especially when there isn’t an ongoing relationship.

I was reading this story yesterday from Dear Prudence:

"Three nights ago, I got extremely intoxicated while out with a friend and texted my husband to tell him I was crashing at her house. We spend the night playing video games with her boyfriend, their roommate, and his friend “Jack.” I eventually fell asleep and I woke up to Jack asking me if I wanted him to stop. I can only piece together small bits of what happened from then on but we certainly had sex. I feel disgusting. I have spent the past few days pretending it didn’t happen but it is slowly seeping back and I don’t know what to do. I want to tell my husband but I am terrified he will never forgive me and our lives will crumble. (We have a toddler together.)

“I have conflicting emotions about what happened because while I know I put myself in that position, I’m not sure what I did to make Jack think this was OK. I had never met Jack before that night and I hope I never see him again. I am feeling too embarrassed and guilty to even tell my therapist. While I have struggled with depression my whole life and it has improved greatly over the past year or so, I am contemplating just ending it. I don’t know how I can exist after hurting the people I love most in this world.
—How to Tell Him”

I understand that advice column letters are often sheer fantasy, but it is an uncomfortably plausible situation. She woke up to “Jack” doing something to her and isn’t clear on what exactly she consented to/whether she consented at all, but she feels really bad about it, whatever happened, and she’s thinking about killing herself.

The range of possibilities is on the one end that she might have consented more than she remembers but on the other end, that Jack is a creepy rapist who only asked her if it was OK for plausible deniability once she woke up. Worst case scenario, this is his MO and he’s done this more than once and perhaps many times.

 

[PetraG]

So you’re fine with convicting innocent people simply because they were engaging in risky behavior? And we aren’t talking about taking drugs from strangers sort of risk. A couple of margaritas at supper could mean that you’re above 0.08 BAC, legally intoxicated but hardly enough to where you can’t consent. That sort of law would also presumably affect women since they would also have the requirement of determining if their partner is intoxicated.

The standard in the California law is not whether or not the person has the physical reflexes to operate a motor vehicle. The standard is whether or not the person has the neurological capacity to exercise judgment. As the law is written, “the person must be able to understand and weigh the physical nature of the act, its moral character, and probable consequences,” It does not say that the person must have his or her typical level of resistance or self-control, but that “Legal consent is consent given freely and voluntarily by someone who knows the nature of the act involved.”

Yes, I think it is OK to require that you know whether or not your partner is so intoxicated that he or she will capitulate to actions on your part that he or she would not consent to if not all liquored up. If you don’t know, you’re proceeding at your own risk. I’m fine with that, yes.

Why should we be protected from taking advantage of drunks? Why should we be protected from the bad decisions we make when we’ve decided to get drunk? You’re talking about men or women who may be becoming parents without their consent!! Why should there be a standard when it comes to wrapping a car around a tree but not when it comes to bringing a child into the world?

 

[ChunkMonk]

It might qualify as black humor, but not as a “light-hearted” joke

So he was joking with a heavy-heart?

or the word “light-hearted” means nothing at all if it’s supposed to cover rape and murder.

Wait, if we are presupposing he was a murderer and rapist then she should be happy that she didn’t go out with him.

Anyway, I’m still waiting to see what social cost she paid for rejecting him. Since, before you started in on this deflection your original point was that she was in a lose-lose situation where she is treated badly for rejecting him and risking death by accepting his invitation. But you still haven’t posted the first ‘lose’ where she was treated badly for rejecting him. So far she got applause from the women and shrugs from the men.

 

[ChunkMonk]

Three nights ago, I got extremely intoxicated while out with a friend…

Translation:

I got wasted and then cheated on my beta husband with a strange guy. I’m now trying to rationalize my slutty behavior by claiming I was too drunk to consent. How can I spin this so my husband doesn’t divorce me and end the gravy train?