For example, if someone's car gets stolen, it's bad. If you discovered that the owner of the car parked it in a bad neighborhood, left it running, left the windows down, and just walked away for a few hours, it'd be acceptable to question exactly what the owner was thinking.
If someone gets raped, it's a tragedy. If you discover that the person who was raped got trashed by themselves, wore extremely provocative clothing, led other people on, and then walked home in a dark alley with nobody around, it is still not socially acceptable to imply the person made any bad decisions.
In the first case, it is acceptable to criticize the victim's thought process and lay some of the blame on them. In the second case, people will jump down your throat and demonize you for implying that the victim holds any responsibility at all.
I just don't agree with your hypothesis. First of all, women are most certainly encouraged to take steps to prevent being raped, e.g. only taking drinks they saw get poured, not being alone at night, making intentions clear, etc. You're absolutely right that it's tactless to criticize a rape victim after the fact, but that's because rape can have profound psychological effects and it's not appropriate to drill a person after they experience something like that. Rest assured, though, that any woman who gets raped will probably change the way they act for the rest of their lives in order to avoid being in the same situation again, even if you don't get the satisfaction of telling them they shouldn't have "lead the guy on".
Second, the reality is that rape victims do get criticized quite a bit in the media. Slut-shaming, misogyny, and victim blaming all contribute to the maintenance of a rape culture in which the rapist gets absolved while the victim gets continually reminded what they could have done differently. I hope I needn't remind you of this infamous quote: "If someone doesn't want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down." This was spoken by a judge.
More recently, the Republicans in Congress allowed the Violence Against Women Act to expire. In light of this evidence, I don't think you can rationally maintain the position that rape victims don't get criticized enough in our culture.
Your argument is also ignorant in that it implies that rape only happens to irresponsible people who drunkenly walk around in bad neighborhoods wearing shirts that say “I'm Fun to Fuck.” First of all, people should be able to do that if they want without fearing getting raped; to accept anything less is essentially condoning rape by default by implying certain people “deserve” it. Second, it's just not true. People in all kinds of circumstances get raped, and in fact, most rape occurs between people who are already well-acquainted with each other. As long as rape culture exists, no amount of personal responsibility and common sense on the part of victims will be able to prevent all or even most rape. Why? Because the perpetrators will not be acting with responsibility or common sense.
IF that's what you see my argument as, you are looking for things that aren't there. I never even attempted to imply that women are only raped under certain circumstances. I only said that it is unacceptable to "victim blame" in that sort of case. Just because not all rapes happen due to circumstances like that DOES NOT mean that none do. I am willing to bet that many rapes would be averted with a bit more caution. People should be safe, but that's an idealistic value. Our world is far from perfect, and so it's simply delusional to act as if we can do whatever we wish without consequences. The fact that a man shouldn't rape you isn't really going to save you from the fact that some people are fucked up and looking to rape you. It's our responsibility as human beings to act accordingly.
I never said victim-blaming didn't exist, I just think we need to re-evaluate our outlook on it.
In one of your earlier comments you made an analogy with thievery, saying that a smart person shouldn't leave their nice car with the key in the ignition in a bad neighborhood. I agree, and I wouldn't do that with my car. And yet if someone did that with their car right outside my house, and I stole it, it would be completely my fault and from both a moral and legal standpoint, I should take 100.0% of the blame.
I think you would agree with all of this. Similarly, a rape is always always always the choice of the perpetrator and not the fault of the victim. While every person should take basic precautions when it comes to sexual safety, no amount of precautions will ever stop someone who wants non-consensual sex. For this reason, changing the culture that promotes rape (however subtly) will be far more productive than adding yet another item to the “How To Not Get Raped” list.
However, since you seem fixated on the idea of a significant number of rapes being caused by women walking around in bad neighborhoods at night while drunk and provocatively dressed, I am curious to see any data you know of that indicates that this is indeed a significant problem.
It would be your fault, but they would still hold a lot of the responsibility for facilitating your theft of the car. You more than likely would not have stolen it were it so easy.
It's fine if you think it is not the fault of the victim, as long as you will agree with the premise of the post. The post isn't about rape not being severe, the post is about rape being treated differently than other crime. If you said "The victim is not to blame" about ANY crime, then we would be on the same page. I would disagree with you, but we would still agree in a way.
I never said it was a significant amount of rapes. This post is specifically about a double-standard that only becomes apparent in extreme cases. My original intention wasn't even to suggest any sort of ways to deal with rape, it was just to point out that certain cases of rape are treated differently from identical cases of different crimes. I only got off track because I probably suffer from some personality disorder distantly related to schizophrenia and can't keep my train of thought. I will start typing something and often forget what my original point was after a few sentences.
All right, here's the vantage point. Your claim is that we could prevent a significant amount of rape simply by having women act more responsibly. Back up that claim with a source and I'll leave you alone.
I do not recall making that claim. If I did, I take it back. While I believe that a small number of rapes could be prevented by women having more responsibility, it is not the point of this post.
The point of the post is that rape is treated differently from other crimes based solely on the fact that it is emotionally charged. Do you agree or disagree?
Well, the point of your post is contingent on the idea that rape victims deserve some of the blame when they act irresponsibly. Maybe we do treat rape victims differently in light of their emotional state, but I think that's neither here nor there, because rape victims do not under any circumstances deserve any of the blame for rape. Again: if I steal a Ferrari, it's completely my fault even if the owner idiotically left the key in the ignition. And if I rape someone, it's completely my fault even if they "led me on" (your words). There's nothing inconsistent here. In both cases, the legal blame falls completely on the perpetrator, no matter if the victim could have acted smarter about it.
So, we disagree about where responsibility lies, but you do agree that rape victims get a different treatment. That is literally the only point of this post, and technically speaking, you agree with the post.
I have had the opposite experience. Any debate such as this that I've seen or been involved in automatically devolves into "IT'S OFFENSIVE AND REPRESSIVE TO TELL WOMEN WHAT THEY SHOULDN'T DO!! WOMEN CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT AND SHOULDN'T FEAR GETTING RAPED!!" I very, very rarely see anyone not respond in that manner.
The term "rape culture" is ridiculous, and I will stop responding to you if you mention it again in a serious manner. We do not live in a rape culture. We live in an unreasonable culture. Sure, somebody at some point probably told women that it was their fault they were raped, and a judge probably let a rapist go. The media is lying to you, I would bet money that this is not the norm. On the flip-side, a woman can wreck a man's life by simply claiming he is harassing her. I've had a friend get arrested over such a claim, with NO proof on the woman's part.
Maybe you should look into what you say first. The act did expire, then it was expanded and renewed. So, that's a moot point.
It is offensive to suggest that women's irresponsibility is the cause of rape, and that being more responsible is the solution. You said it yourself, "some people are fucked up", and fucked up men won't have any serious difficulty raping even the most responsible woman. Beyond being offensive, it's just inaccurate and therefore ignorant, because most rape isn't the result of the avoidable circumstances that your post talks about.
I find that most people who take offense to the term "rape culture" don't understand it. Rape culture doesn't really refer to malpracticing judges, it refers to a society (such as the hypothetical society you support) in which rape is taken less seriously than it should be, or in which the blame of rape partially shifts to the victim. Since you're arguing in favor of partially blaming rape victims, you might as well get used to accusations of condoning rape culture. They are one in the same.
Actually, I'd say it's completely reasonable to assert that at least a few times in history, a woman's irresponsible actions inadvertently led to her being raped. Did she rape herself or ask to be raped? No. Did she place herself in a prime position to be taken advantage of despite knowing the there exist people willing to do so? Yes. Whether people decide to get butt-hurt or not, she takes some of the responsibility. And I disagree, there are steps one can take to prevent men who decide to go beyond mere taking advantage of women. Women with concealed firearms prevent tens of thousands of rapes per year. I know any woman who hangs out with me is at zero risk for being raped by me or anyone else. Just because most rapes aren't a result of irresponsible behavior, again, does not mean that none are. What is there to lose by telling women to be more responsible? Nothing, and there is a lot to gain.
I'm not offended by the term, it is just mind-numbingly stupid. Also, you are incorrect. It is used to describe a culture in which rape is common and accepted as the norm.
The car is not a completely comparable example - you're talking about stealing a car, property belonging to a person, as opposed to violating a person's body. Unless you are comparing the rape victim to an object, the latter is obviously a worse crime, since it is direct violence against another human being.
Irrelevant. The severity of the crime should not cloud the circumstances and change the facts. Whether or not it is acceptable to "victim blame" does not change the fact that certain behaviors are irresponsible.
Here is another example. It would be okay to advise someone traveling through known gang-territory not to dress in the style of the rival gang and try not to act noticeable. People would immediately get offended, however, if someone suggest women going to bars take any steps to prevent being raped.
What I'm saying is that it is acceptable to lay some responsibility on someone if they acted like a complete idiot and were the victim of a crime, barring the crime of rape. People think that women should be able to do literally whatever they wish without suffering any consequences, but nobody else. People would argue that a woman who took a bunch of drugs, got naked, and climbed into a van with "rape" painted on the side should hold zero responsibility for her actions. Every action has a consequence, whether or not we want to pander to people's emotional needs.
The other factor is how much this kind of behavior is encouraged by the media, and I am talking about advertisements which capitalize on human sexuality and existing sexism in society, constantly depicting women as vulnerable in order to promote whatever products they are trying to sell. Such vulnerability can even be said to be romanticized by these ads, and if this is a problem we should take another look at these ads, not blaming the victims.
The other point I was going to make but for some reason didn't in my previous comment was that it IS possible to teach self-control so that a person does not rape. Instead of shaming women for conforming to the very image that the media depicts as favorable in women, there should be more of a focus on self-control. If it is really a case in which the perpetrator could not control himself (which is often used as an excuse), teach ways in which self-control can be implemented.
The media is shitty, and I rarely agree with how they portray things. I can't argue with you there.
Here's the problem, everyone is too emotional and their opinions shift depending on the circumstances. We will staunchly argue that people "are the way they are" one minute, but then demonize others for the same exact thing. For example, people with depression are met with pity and sympathy, because they can't help the way they feel. Pedophiles are condemned universally, though, despite not having control over being pedophiles. This isn't even pedophiles who have done anything or plan to do anything bad. Simply admitting that children turn you on would be enough to receive death threats and get called a sick fuck. We need to establish standards. What constitutes being beyond one's control? How do we handle unacceptable behaviors carried out by people that couldn't control it? These are just more double-standards, and I believe they are relevant because I do not believe most rapists are simply misguided. We need to be able to teach women how not to get raped, because there will always be people who cannot be helped despite any amount of counseling.
I agree with the post but not for the reason stated in your comment. In many communities the emotional state of the perpetrator, the victim and (sometimes even their families) often comes unfairly into evidence. Rape is such a fraction crime that it seems that a "facts in evidence only" approach is rare, especially when there is media involved.
says 60% of rapes aren't reported
95% of college rapes aren't reported
I'm thinking the reason that so many don't report is because they feel ashamed, they think that they brought in on themselves, and/or they think the perp is going to end up walking so they feel like reliving the whole thing over isn't worth it
but the thing is that once someone is raped once
they're likelier to be raped again in comparison to those who have never been raped
the perpetrators are 38% friends/acquaintances
strangers are 26%
48% of rapes occurred where both perp and victim were drinking
America is #6 on the list with highest rape rates
Lesotho is #1
New Zealand #5
England #9
on the other hand
Canada in on the list with lowest rape rates coming in at #7
Egypt #1
Turkey #5
Belarus #9
but the good thing is that since '93 there's been a 60% decline
I wonder what's changed to cause such a decline
maybe because vics are speaking out more instead of keeping it a secret
so the perps are more scared of getting caught/jail time
I also wonder if there are any variables to skew these results
since presumable 60% aren't reported (so more than half already cannot be false accusations)
there's a 40% that are reported
of that 40%, how many are false accusations?
I think it's safe to say false accusations are more of the exception than the norm
there's a statue of limitations on rape too
I think it's 5 years?
I don't know how to vote on this
I feel like I'll be biased/subjective whether I YYA or NW
No other crimes are treated as differently as rape and everything else. To put it in perspective, rape is the only crime that has "shield laws". These prevent the accuser from being cross-examined about their past during the trial, and makes it illegal for the media to release their name during the trial. It's one of the only crimes in which the accused is guilty until proven innocent, which is the opposite of how it should work.
For example, if someone's car gets stolen, it's bad. If you discovered that the owner of the car parked it in a bad neighborhood, left it running, left the windows down, and just walked away for a few hours, it'd be acceptable to question exactly what the owner was thinking.
If someone gets raped, it's a tragedy. If you discover that the person who was raped got trashed by themselves, wore extremely provocative clothing, led other people on, and then walked home in a dark alley with nobody around, it is still not socially acceptable to imply the person made any bad decisions.
In the first case, it is acceptable to criticize the victim's thought process and lay some of the blame on them. In the second case, people will jump down your throat and demonize you for implying that the victim holds any responsibility at all.
I just don't agree with your hypothesis. First of all, women are most certainly encouraged to take steps to prevent being raped, e.g. only taking drinks they saw get poured, not being alone at night, making intentions clear, etc. You're absolutely right that it's tactless to criticize a rape victim after the fact, but that's because rape can have profound psychological effects and it's not appropriate to drill a person after they experience something like that. Rest assured, though, that any woman who gets raped will probably change the way they act for the rest of their lives in order to avoid being in the same situation again, even if you don't get the satisfaction of telling them they shouldn't have "lead the guy on".
Second, the reality is that rape victims do get criticized quite a bit in the media. Slut-shaming, misogyny, and victim blaming all contribute to the maintenance of a rape culture in which the rapist gets absolved while the victim gets continually reminded what they could have done differently. I hope I needn't remind you of this infamous quote: "If someone doesn't want to have sexual intercourse, the body shuts down." This was spoken by a judge.
More recently, the Republicans in Congress allowed the Violence Against Women Act to expire. In light of this evidence, I don't think you can rationally maintain the position that rape victims don't get criticized enough in our culture.
Your argument is also ignorant in that it implies that rape only happens to irresponsible people who drunkenly walk around in bad neighborhoods wearing shirts that say “I'm Fun to Fuck.” First of all, people should be able to do that if they want without fearing getting raped; to accept anything less is essentially condoning rape by default by implying certain people “deserve” it. Second, it's just not true. People in all kinds of circumstances get raped, and in fact, most rape occurs between people who are already well-acquainted with each other. As long as rape culture exists, no amount of personal responsibility and common sense on the part of victims will be able to prevent all or even most rape. Why? Because the perpetrators will not be acting with responsibility or common sense.
If you still don't believe victim blaming exists, you can check out the Wikipedia article on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
IF that's what you see my argument as, you are looking for things that aren't there. I never even attempted to imply that women are only raped under certain circumstances. I only said that it is unacceptable to "victim blame" in that sort of case. Just because not all rapes happen due to circumstances like that DOES NOT mean that none do. I am willing to bet that many rapes would be averted with a bit more caution. People should be safe, but that's an idealistic value. Our world is far from perfect, and so it's simply delusional to act as if we can do whatever we wish without consequences. The fact that a man shouldn't rape you isn't really going to save you from the fact that some people are fucked up and looking to rape you. It's our responsibility as human beings to act accordingly.
I never said victim-blaming didn't exist, I just think we need to re-evaluate our outlook on it.
In one of your earlier comments you made an analogy with thievery, saying that a smart person shouldn't leave their nice car with the key in the ignition in a bad neighborhood. I agree, and I wouldn't do that with my car. And yet if someone did that with their car right outside my house, and I stole it, it would be completely my fault and from both a moral and legal standpoint, I should take 100.0% of the blame.
I think you would agree with all of this. Similarly, a rape is always always always the choice of the perpetrator and not the fault of the victim. While every person should take basic precautions when it comes to sexual safety, no amount of precautions will ever stop someone who wants non-consensual sex. For this reason, changing the culture that promotes rape (however subtly) will be far more productive than adding yet another item to the “How To Not Get Raped” list.
However, since you seem fixated on the idea of a significant number of rapes being caused by women walking around in bad neighborhoods at night while drunk and provocatively dressed, I am curious to see any data you know of that indicates that this is indeed a significant problem.
It would be your fault, but they would still hold a lot of the responsibility for facilitating your theft of the car. You more than likely would not have stolen it were it so easy.
It's fine if you think it is not the fault of the victim, as long as you will agree with the premise of the post. The post isn't about rape not being severe, the post is about rape being treated differently than other crime. If you said "The victim is not to blame" about ANY crime, then we would be on the same page. I would disagree with you, but we would still agree in a way.
I never said it was a significant amount of rapes. This post is specifically about a double-standard that only becomes apparent in extreme cases. My original intention wasn't even to suggest any sort of ways to deal with rape, it was just to point out that certain cases of rape are treated differently from identical cases of different crimes. I only got off track because I probably suffer from some personality disorder distantly related to schizophrenia and can't keep my train of thought. I will start typing something and often forget what my original point was after a few sentences.
All right, here's the vantage point. Your claim is that we could prevent a significant amount of rape simply by having women act more responsibly. Back up that claim with a source and I'll leave you alone.
I do not recall making that claim. If I did, I take it back. While I believe that a small number of rapes could be prevented by women having more responsibility, it is not the point of this post.
The point of the post is that rape is treated differently from other crimes based solely on the fact that it is emotionally charged. Do you agree or disagree?
Well, the point of your post is contingent on the idea that rape victims deserve some of the blame when they act irresponsibly. Maybe we do treat rape victims differently in light of their emotional state, but I think that's neither here nor there, because rape victims do not under any circumstances deserve any of the blame for rape. Again: if I steal a Ferrari, it's completely my fault even if the owner idiotically left the key in the ignition. And if I rape someone, it's completely my fault even if they "led me on" (your words). There's nothing inconsistent here. In both cases, the legal blame falls completely on the perpetrator, no matter if the victim could have acted smarter about it.
So, we disagree about where responsibility lies, but you do agree that rape victims get a different treatment. That is literally the only point of this post, and technically speaking, you agree with the post.
I have had the opposite experience. Any debate such as this that I've seen or been involved in automatically devolves into "IT'S OFFENSIVE AND REPRESSIVE TO TELL WOMEN WHAT THEY SHOULDN'T DO!! WOMEN CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT AND SHOULDN'T FEAR GETTING RAPED!!" I very, very rarely see anyone not respond in that manner.
The term "rape culture" is ridiculous, and I will stop responding to you if you mention it again in a serious manner. We do not live in a rape culture. We live in an unreasonable culture. Sure, somebody at some point probably told women that it was their fault they were raped, and a judge probably let a rapist go. The media is lying to you, I would bet money that this is not the norm. On the flip-side, a woman can wreck a man's life by simply claiming he is harassing her. I've had a friend get arrested over such a claim, with NO proof on the woman's part.
Maybe you should look into what you say first. The act did expire, then it was expanded and renewed. So, that's a moot point.
It is offensive to suggest that women's irresponsibility is the cause of rape, and that being more responsible is the solution. You said it yourself, "some people are fucked up", and fucked up men won't have any serious difficulty raping even the most responsible woman. Beyond being offensive, it's just inaccurate and therefore ignorant, because most rape isn't the result of the avoidable circumstances that your post talks about.
I find that most people who take offense to the term "rape culture" don't understand it. Rape culture doesn't really refer to malpracticing judges, it refers to a society (such as the hypothetical society you support) in which rape is taken less seriously than it should be, or in which the blame of rape partially shifts to the victim. Since you're arguing in favor of partially blaming rape victims, you might as well get used to accusations of condoning rape culture. They are one in the same.
Actually, I'd say it's completely reasonable to assert that at least a few times in history, a woman's irresponsible actions inadvertently led to her being raped. Did she rape herself or ask to be raped? No. Did she place herself in a prime position to be taken advantage of despite knowing the there exist people willing to do so? Yes. Whether people decide to get butt-hurt or not, she takes some of the responsibility. And I disagree, there are steps one can take to prevent men who decide to go beyond mere taking advantage of women. Women with concealed firearms prevent tens of thousands of rapes per year. I know any woman who hangs out with me is at zero risk for being raped by me or anyone else. Just because most rapes aren't a result of irresponsible behavior, again, does not mean that none are. What is there to lose by telling women to be more responsible? Nothing, and there is a lot to gain.
I'm not offended by the term, it is just mind-numbingly stupid. Also, you are incorrect. It is used to describe a culture in which rape is common and accepted as the norm.
The car is not a completely comparable example - you're talking about stealing a car, property belonging to a person, as opposed to violating a person's body. Unless you are comparing the rape victim to an object, the latter is obviously a worse crime, since it is direct violence against another human being.
Irrelevant. The severity of the crime should not cloud the circumstances and change the facts. Whether or not it is acceptable to "victim blame" does not change the fact that certain behaviors are irresponsible.
Here is another example. It would be okay to advise someone traveling through known gang-territory not to dress in the style of the rival gang and try not to act noticeable. People would immediately get offended, however, if someone suggest women going to bars take any steps to prevent being raped.
What I'm saying is that it is acceptable to lay some responsibility on someone if they acted like a complete idiot and were the victim of a crime, barring the crime of rape. People think that women should be able to do literally whatever they wish without suffering any consequences, but nobody else. People would argue that a woman who took a bunch of drugs, got naked, and climbed into a van with "rape" painted on the side should hold zero responsibility for her actions. Every action has a consequence, whether or not we want to pander to people's emotional needs.
The other factor is how much this kind of behavior is encouraged by the media, and I am talking about advertisements which capitalize on human sexuality and existing sexism in society, constantly depicting women as vulnerable in order to promote whatever products they are trying to sell. Such vulnerability can even be said to be romanticized by these ads, and if this is a problem we should take another look at these ads, not blaming the victims.
The other point I was going to make but for some reason didn't in my previous comment was that it IS possible to teach self-control so that a person does not rape. Instead of shaming women for conforming to the very image that the media depicts as favorable in women, there should be more of a focus on self-control. If it is really a case in which the perpetrator could not control himself (which is often used as an excuse), teach ways in which self-control can be implemented.
Maybe we should be teaching these kinds of tips:
http://canyourelate.org/2011/05...evention-tips/
The media is shitty, and I rarely agree with how they portray things. I can't argue with you there.
Here's the problem, everyone is too emotional and their opinions shift depending on the circumstances. We will staunchly argue that people "are the way they are" one minute, but then demonize others for the same exact thing. For example, people with depression are met with pity and sympathy, because they can't help the way they feel. Pedophiles are condemned universally, though, despite not having control over being pedophiles. This isn't even pedophiles who have done anything or plan to do anything bad. Simply admitting that children turn you on would be enough to receive death threats and get called a sick fuck. We need to establish standards. What constitutes being beyond one's control? How do we handle unacceptable behaviors carried out by people that couldn't control it? These are just more double-standards, and I believe they are relevant because I do not believe most rapists are simply misguided. We need to be able to teach women how not to get raped, because there will always be people who cannot be helped despite any amount of counseling.
Also, I have a very strong feeling this post will be negatively received, and thus completely demonstrate the entire point of itself.
I agree with the post but not for the reason stated in your comment. In many communities the emotional state of the perpetrator, the victim and (sometimes even their families) often comes unfairly into evidence. Rape is such a fraction crime that it seems that a "facts in evidence only" approach is rare, especially when there is media involved.
That's kind of the point I was trying to make, though much more to the point.
I tried to picture myself telling a rape victim that they shouldn't have dressed the way they did or acted the way they did and it was hard for me.
But you made a good point.
http://www.statisticbrain.com/rape-statistics/
says 60% of rapes aren't reported
95% of college rapes aren't reported
I'm thinking the reason that so many don't report is because they feel ashamed, they think that they brought in on themselves, and/or they think the perp is going to end up walking so they feel like reliving the whole thing over isn't worth it
but the thing is that once someone is raped once
they're likelier to be raped again in comparison to those who have never been raped
the perpetrators are 38% friends/acquaintances
strangers are 26%
48% of rapes occurred where both perp and victim were drinking
America is #6 on the list with highest rape rates
Lesotho is #1
New Zealand #5
England #9
on the other hand
Canada in on the list with lowest rape rates coming in at #7
Egypt #1
Turkey #5
Belarus #9
but the good thing is that since '93 there's been a 60% decline
I wonder what's changed to cause such a decline
maybe because vics are speaking out more instead of keeping it a secret
so the perps are more scared of getting caught/jail time
I also wonder if there are any variables to skew these results
the double standard part
do you mean globa...
Egypt has the lowest rape rates in the world? I'm having a little trouble believing that
hmm
why is that?
I just remember hearing all sorts of news about reporters being raped, I suppose that doesn't necessarily mean that there's more rape in total.
do you mean globally
or did you have specific areas in mind?
I think an important thing to remember is that there are male victims too
how many rape victims, male or female, fall under the radar?
since presumable 60% aren't reported (so more than half already cannot be false accusations)
there's a 40% that are reported
of that 40%, how many are false accusations?
I think it's safe to say false accusations are more of the exception than the norm
there's a statue of limitations on rape too
I think it's 5 years?
I don't know how to vote on this
I feel like I'll be biased/subjective whether I YYA or NW
false accusations exist in all crimes
and studies shows that good looking people are more likely to be found not guilty in comparison to the ugly ones
there's just so many factors involved
how much can the justice system do?
it seems impossible to account for all those variables
bear with me
I know I went off the main topic
No other crimes are treated as differently as rape and everything else. To put it in perspective, rape is the only crime that has "shield laws". These prevent the accuser from being cross-examined about their past during the trial, and makes it illegal for the media to release their name during the trial. It's one of the only crimes in which the accused is guilty until proven innocent, which is the opposite of how it should work.
Interesting. I secede from the discussion.