Rape Culture Flourishes

[liltwinstar]

So, she lied on her immigration paperwork in order to get asylum, right? That makes sense to me; doesn't mean it's right of course, but what if she was afraid that she would be gang-raped if she were sent back to her country of origin? I can think of a *ton* of reasons to lie in order to stay in the US. Food, jobs, safety, etc etc etc.

Doesn't mean she wasn't raped by Strauss-Kahn, though, although I do have to agree that it doesn't do much for her credibility. But, apparently there are allegations in France that Strauss-Kahn assaulted a woman there, too, which surprises me not one little bit. Once a rapist, always a rapist in my book. Also, this French woman is white and conventionally pretty, so I'm waiting for that story to be *huge* while the poor, black immigrant victim gets shoved aside.

(Not saying pretty women deserve to be raped. No one deserves to be raped, period. But I am tired of all the media focus and pity being directed at the conventionally pretty people, while they ignore victims who don't meet their aesthetic standard).

[jaelh]

Jaelh, there's a huge difference between being sexually active and being someone who has lied about being raped in the past.

If someone who was very sexually active claimed she was raped, I'd have no trouble believing her. If a prostitute or a drug addict claimed she was raped, I'd have no problem believing her. However, someone who has made a false claim of rape before- yes, I'm going to have trouble believing her.

It has nothing to do with the woman's sexual history and everything to do with her history of making false accusations.

There was no false accusation in the first instance.

She said she was gang raped to gain asylum.

No one was accused of anything.

It was never proved she was raped in the first.

Different opinion now, or same?

[aerynoctober]

Wow, I never would have expected rape apologists on this site. I guess the Patriarchal Kool-aid is some good shit.

To whom are you referring, and what did they say that was an apologetic for rape?

I was also going to ask you to please elucidate your prior statement that sexual consent is a misunderstood concept. What does it actually mean? What false meaning is widely understood and believed? I am very interested in learning more about your views on this.

[valsa]

It doesn't matter if no one was accused of anything, she still lied about being raped. There's a direct connection that diminishes her credibility when it comes to claiming she's been raped a second time.

As I mentioned before, if someone lied about having their car stolen before, I'm going to be less inclined to believe them about their car being stolen again.

If someone lied about being robbed before, I'm going to have trouble believing them when they say they've been robbed a second time.

[Boogalou]

Wow. This is the second thing I have read within the past hour along these same lines. THIS is (one of the many, many) reason(s) we need feminism. The sad thing is that fundies see very little problem with this. I also suspect this non-conviction has a lot to do with their significant socioeconomic gap. Rich white guys can do no wrong, amirite?

[jaelh]

If someone lied about being robbed before, I'm going to have trouble believing them when they say they've been robbed a second time.

But if they lied about being raped, you'd not doubt a word they said, right?

[valsa]

So, she lied on her immigration paperwork in order to get asylum, right? That makes sense to me; doesn't mean it's right of course, but what if she was afraid that she would be gang-raped if she were sent back to her country of origin?

I don't know when she applied for asylum but currently you can apply for asylum even if you just have a good reason to fear being persecuted in your home country. So currently (I don't know when this went into affect) one wouldn't need to lie about being gang-raped, only prove you have a reasonable fear of that occurring.

[valsa]

But if they lied about being raped, you'd not doubt a word they said, right?

Not unless they had an established pattern of lying about other things as well. Lying about being raped doesn't have a direct connection to lying about being robbed.

[jaelh]

I don't know when she applied for asylum but currently you can apply for asylum even if you just have a good reason to fear being persecuted in your home country. So currently (I don't know when this went into affect) one wouldn't need to lie about being gang-raped, only prove you have a reasonable fear of that occurring.

Err.... Valsa, how familiar are you with the asylum process?

Yes, you "can apply for asylum even if you just have a good reason to fear being persecuted" (I can't believe you put an even in there, it's so dismissive of such an incredibly serious thing, as if it's not actually a legit reason "even if you just". ).

But yes. "even if it's just a good reason" has to be proved somehow. How do you prove you fear persecution?

That is - what's the evidence that you fear persecution?

[And then, it has to be at the hands of the 'government'. (My fave: prior to 2001, my country was knocking back claims from Afghan Hazara's on the basis that the Taliban wasn't the government).

Now, if you're say, Dunka southern Sudanese, you were prob. good for a while there. Clear - government --> minority group --> persecution. ]

This woman, as I understand - her father was murdered by the opposing political party. That was deemed insufficient to secure her asylum. That one was raped would go some long way towards creating sufficiency.

I'm sure you can see *why* one might claim one was gang raped (lie or otherwise)? Given you're illiterate, going to be sent back to hell on earth, your family has been murdered etc... Perpahs you, should you ever suffer the misfortune to be in the same situation, might also lie?

Unfortunately, this woman lacked the privilege of the great white middle class of being morally honest, in this situation.

There but for the grace of God, the FSM, the power of the universe, go I.

And yes - I'm sure you can see (I'm sure you can Valsa, even if you try to tell us its the same) that this is a fundamentally different situation from someone who jacks a car to claim the cash. Life and death, a life of poverty or the great break for freedom: these things are not comparable to insurance fraud.

[debrand]

Wait, how does anyone know that she lied about being raped?

[aerynoctober]

Err.... Valsa, how familiar are you with the asylum process?

Yes, you "can apply for asylum even if you just have a good reason to fear being persecuted" (I can't believe you put an even in there, it's so dismissive of such an incredibly serious thing, as if it's not actually a legit reason "even if you just". ).

But yes. "even if it's just a good reason" has to be proved somehow. How do you prove you fear persecution?

That is - what's the evidence that you fear persecution?

[And then, it has to be at the hands of the 'government'. (My fave: prior to 2001, my country was knocking back claims from Afghan Hazara's on the basis that the Taliban wasn't the government).

Now, if you're say, Dunka southern Sudanese, you were prob. good for a while there. Clear - government --> minority group --> persecution. ]

This woman, as I understand - her father was murdered by the opposing political party. That was deemed insufficient to secure her asylum. That one was raped would go some long way towards creating sufficiency.

I'm sure you can see *why* one might claim one was gang raped (lie or otherwise)? Given you're illiterate, going to be sent back to hell on earth, your family has been murdered etc... Perpahs you, should you ever suffer the misfortune to be in the same situation, might also lie?

Unfortunately, this woman lacked the privilege of the great white middle class of being morally honest, in this situation.

There but for the grace of God, the FSM, the power of the universe, go I.

And yes - I'm sure you can see (I'm sure you can Valsa, even if you try to tell us its the same) that this is a fundamentally different situation from someone who jacks a car to claim the cash. Life and death, a life of poverty or the great break for freedom: these things are not comparable to insurance fraud.

If your presentation of the situation is factually accurate (I'm not accusing you of getting anything wrong; I'm just unable to do independent research right now) AND if she was in fact raped this time (I have no idea) AND if her previous lie is the reason her rapist is going to go unpunished....(three very big if's)......

then it really sucks. The injustice is a vastly disproportional consequence to the moral offense of having lied about rape in the past. Autonomous moral agents who make decisions for themselves as adult human beings, which is after all what feminism fought for women to have the right to be and do, sometimes face vastly disproportionate consequences to relatively small mistakes.

It sucks.

[valsa]

Err.... Valsa, how familiar are you with the asylum process?

Yes, you "can apply for asylum even if you just have a good reason to fear being persecuted" (I can't believe you put an even in there, it's so dismissive of such an incredibly serious thing, as if it's not actually a legit reason "even if you just". ).

But yes. "even if it's just a good reason" has to be proved somehow. How do you prove you fear persecution?

That is - what's the evidence that you fear persecution?

[And then, it has to be at the hands of the 'government'. (My fave: prior to 2001, my country was knocking back claims from Afghan Hazara's on the basis that the Taliban wasn't the government).

Now, if you're say, Dunka southern Sudanese, you were prob. good for a while there. Clear - government --> minority group --> persecution. ]

This woman, as I understand - her father was murdered by the opposing political party. That was deemed insufficient to secure her asylum. That one was raped would go some long way towards creating sufficiency.

I'm sure you can see *why* one might claim one was gang raped (lie or otherwise)? Given you're illiterate, going to be sent back to hell on earth, your family has been murdered etc... Perpahs you, should you ever suffer the misfortune to be in the same situation, might also lie?

Unfortunately, this woman lacked the privilege of the great white middle class of being morally honest, in this situation.

There but for the grace of God, the FSM, the power of the universe, go I.

And yes - I'm sure you can see (I'm sure you can Valsa, even if you try to tell us its the same) that this is a fundamentally different situation from someone who jacks a car to claim the cash. Life and death, a life of poverty or the great break for freedom: these things are not comparable to insurance fraud.

Jaelh, I don't think any of what you're talking about really matters. She lied. Period. I don't know if I would have lied in her situation or not because we don't really know what her situation was in her home country. She could have been lying about more than being raped. However, even if I lied about being raped to get into the country, I wouldn't be surprised if people didn't believe me when I claimed to have been raped. It's common sense.

Tell me Jaelh, from what I understand, Strauss-Kahn has a history of victimizing women, correct? (Which according to him, I'm sure, he had a good reason to lie about. Does lying to avoid prison rape pass the "justified" test with you?) Does his history of victimizing women make you more likely to believe he's guilty? If so, isn't it a double standard that this women's history of lying doesn't make you believe she's guilty of lying? Do connected prior bad acts only count against men?

[LynnKaboom]

ignore this, I'm too angry at the moment to form a coherent response.

[jaelh]

Jaelh, I don't think any of what you're talking about really matters. She lied. Period. I don't know if I would have lied in her situation or not because we don't really know what her situation was in her home country. She could have been lying about more than being raped. However, even if I lied about being raped to get into the country, I wouldn't be surprised if people didn't believe me when I claimed to have been raped. It's common sense.

Tell me Jaelh, from what I understand, Strauss-Kahn has a history of victimizing women, correct? (Which according to him, I'm sure, he had a good reason to lie about. Does lying to avoid prison rape pass the "justified" test with you?) Does his history of victimizing women make you more likely to believe he's guilty? If so, isn't it a double standard that this women's history of lying doesn't make you believe she's guilty of lying? Do connected prior bad acts only count against men?

I think everything you're saying proves the OP point. And the article linked.

You cannot get a rape conviction if the victim is ever less than perfect.

Lie once, you can be raped with impunity.

It's just common sense! Of course!

Leaving alone the whole lack of necessary relationship with prision rape - the present case can be judged on its merits. As in - you can find all the info about the actual physical evidence of the rape online. SK's background isn't "needed" to prove squat.

See Valsa - we're not actually arguing about wether or not he DID rape her; the prosecutor says they think he did.

Rather they're saying - no court will convict. Not becuase she WASN'T raped. Because the concenus seems to be that she was.

Rather it's that no jury will convict when the victim has this victims background.

You are that jury.

And it's just common sense!

You go girl.

[valsa]

You cannot get a rape conviction if the victim is ever less than perfect.

Nice strawman but why don't you try "You cannot get a rape conviction if the victim has already lied about being raped once before."

[samithemage]

I don't know any of the specifics, but isn't it possible that "she lied about being raped before" (if that's true) because the situation in her homeland is so terrible and that saying that you can't get access to water, food, healthcare, or that you are being threatened with rape, or even that you are being beaten and frightened daily by rebel or government hoards, doesn't hold the same impact as "being raped." Her life was likely as terrible as being raped. It's more comparable to lying about your car being stolen, because everyday your car was vandalized, or parts of it were stolen (ie the radio), or things that you left inside of your care were stolen. You were constantly terrified and abused, but no one would do anything until the car was gone.

[jaelh]

Nice strawman but why don't you try "You cannot get a rape conviction if the victim has already lied about being raped once before."

You cannot get a rape conviction if the victim has already lied about being raped once before

Even if she's been raped.

And you seem to think this is acceptable. Common sense, even.

Awesome!

[GenerationCedarchip]

Wait, how does anyone know that she lied about being raped?

I don't think we'll ever know for sure. This woman may well have been sexually assaulted and if she was, my heart goes out to her. However, I can see why the DA would be loathe to go forward because it's really hard to prove any kind of case when your star witness has a credibility problem. I've sat in courtrooms and watched prosecutors successfully convict rapists for their assaults on prostitutes, drug addicts and other people who weren't exactly virginal, conventionally attractive, or even accepted by most of society. What I haven't seen is a prosecutor able to rehabilitate a complaining witness, for any type of crime, who has an obviously uneasy relationship with the truth.

According to the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal and other non-tabloid(i.e. not the NY Post) reports, the prosecutors' investigative team has allegedly admitted that the accuser in this case:

- lied about being gang raped on an application to get into the USA and get asylum

- lied on immigration paperwork about being subjected to genital mutilation (per investigators, she gave conflicting accounts on this subject)

- lied about what she did immediately after the alleged attack (she originally claimed that she got her supervisor to come to her aid immediately; she has since admitted that she continued cleaning rooms after the alleged attack before running into a supervisor and then telling that supervisor she had been attacked)

- lied about the number of cellphones she has - the one she initially claimed not to own was a phone that she appears to have been using to call an inmate in Arizona

- lied about her source of income - it turns out she has two jobs but she initially claimed to be only a hotel maid

- lied about the amount of her income so that she could get housing benefits

She has also:

- been recorded speaking to an inmate and telling him that she stood to make a lot of money from making claims against Strauss-Kahn because she knew he was wealthy(I've seen differing accounts of this call so I'd be curious to find a transcript or at least a really good summary.)

- received $100,000 in bank deposits over the past year or two from sources linked to criminal activity; she received these deposits in a variety of states

- allegedly cheated on her taxes/misreported income

[valsa]

You cannot get a rape conviction if the victim has already lied about being raped once before

Even if she's been raped.

And you seem to think this is acceptable. Common sense, even.

Awesome!

I never said it was acceptable, I said it was understandable. And yes, it is common sense that people will find your credibility diminished when you say something has happened that you've lied about in the past. There's a whole children's story about it- The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

[Alecto]

I'm still absolutely floored that the subject of men and boys being raped is dismissed so easily.

I know of two men who have been raped as adults. One was by another man who was trying to punish him for being gay, another was by a woman who had drugged him.

As far as the original case, the real horror story to me is how the tabloid press has gone after the victim. The defense going after a witness is pretty much expected. In fact, if they didn't, it would be considered not doing their job. But it seems that if this victim was white and pretty, she'd be believed, even if she was in the same situation and had done the same things. Or if the victim was poor and a minority.

The real issue seems to be that no matter what the truth of the situation is, money can buy innocence or the perception of innocence.

[jaelh]

I never said it was acceptable, I said it was understandable. And yes, it is common sense that people will find your credibility diminished when you say something has happened that you've lied about in the past. There's a whole children's story about it- The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Valsa - please tell me you also find it problematic; the rapist getting off and all. Even if the woman has lied in the past. Dozens and dozens of times. Sorry. That's the bit I've been missing in your posts: that understandable or otherwise, it's still very problematic: rapist walks free.

GC : you're right about the relationship with the truth and accusers. However rape is in something of a category of its own: establishing the crime actually occurred seems to rely on much more than physical evidence of such a claim. Scratches? She liked it rough. I didn't know she wasn't consenting! Throw in drinking - can you remember not consenting?

That the 'default' state of sex is "she consented", the requirement to prove there was no consent, in conjunction with the above, does place a much more onerous burden on the accuser than in most cases. If you claim assault, it's unlikely the bruises on your face are construed as inflicted for pleasure. Stalking? Ongoing harassment? Point to the pattern of behaviour and that's enough. Others are much more likely to be in on the later two, also (atleast, know about them and their occurance over time).

Rape being such an intangible thing, the burden on the claimant is much higher than for other crimes.

[valsa]

Valsa - please tell me you also find it problematic; the rapist getting off and all. Even if the woman has lied in the past. Dozens and dozens of times. Sorry. That's the bit I've been missing in your posts: that understandable or otherwise, it's still very problematic: rapist walks free.

Jaelh, I find it not only problematic but horrific when a rapist goes free. I personally don't think I should need to put that in my posts because, as I am an at-least halfway decent human being, it should be assumed. I don't know anyone except the most horrible of people who would go "Oh, a rapist is getting off scott free? Yay!"

However, as a feminist, I also find it problematic that in this case the man's history on a related subject (his prior history of sexual assault) is being highlighted while every other feminist seemingly wants to shove the woman's related history (lying about being raped before) under the rug. Equal should be equal, even when it involves a checkmark against the woman.

Is rape still depressingly hard to get a conviction for? Yes. Do juries and society in general still hold unrelated personal matters such as sexual history against female victims? Yes. Should we be outraged about that? Hell yes!

However, whether or not this woman was raped, I don't think that's what's happening in this case. A previous lie about being raped is very much related to a current accusation of rape, just as a previous commitment of sexual assault is related to a current accusation of committing sexual assault.

I feel like feminists are holding this woman up as a paragon of the injustice faced by female rape victims in the court system and, in the meantime, her lies and untrustworthiness are only serving to hurt the female rape victims who haven't lied but are being lumped in with her anyway.

[BlackHawk]

Oh Jesus Fucking Christ on a cracker!! If you compare the rate at which women are raped by men to the rate men are raped - especially by women, it is a fucking insult that you would even post this!

You know, I read this then stayed away till my anger went down a bit. As a man who was raped at 13 by 2 different people, I find what you say to be insulting. The reason you don't hear about boys being raped, by other men OR women, is because of the same taboo. If you are a man who has been raped you are "weak". If you are a man who has been raped by a woman you are a "pansy". Heaven forbid you were raped and had an erection and ejaculated.. then you liked it. Just because you hear more about females being raped doesn't mean it doesn't happen or it's an insult to throw a man in there. My rape happen 13 years ago, I talk about it openly now because it is what it is, but when it happened my father sat down with me and explained WHY they wouldn't call the police and WHY I would never get my day in court. You see, I had an erection at some point that the rapists, whom my father knew well, told him all about when they "repented" for their sins. So that must have meant I liked it, didn't matter I was 13 and had an erection when the wind blew. This was the reason I had to go to the elders and have them pray over my sinful ways. This was the reason my best friend at the time could no longer hang out with me or come over for Bible study. Everyone knew in the church, and I was at fault. When I came out as gay, you better believe that was thrown in my face, by my own family.

To state that anyone can be raped, male or female, does not invalidate that what is going on in this case is shitty. The reasoning behind it is crap and the case should go to trial. But your statements are exactly why you don't hear more about boys or men being raped. Believe it or not, women CAN rape and they do. Women can be evil too. To state that does not mean I believe all women are evil, does not mean that I think women should be in the kitchen and pregnant. It's reality. Anyone can be evil, regardless of gender identity.

Your ignorance is showing. Not all men are evil patriarch types who have drunk the kool-aid.

[aerynoctober]

Blackhawk, I am truly sorry for what you've been through.

I'm another rape survivor who doesn't fit into the proper societal box that has been prescribed for me (in my case, I don't blame a "rape culture" or hold to the proper guilty-until-proven-innocent assumptions for men who are accused of rape). It really sucks. I am truly sorry your experience is being invalidated by those who think they know better than you or I how we are supposed to feel and process and view the world after our experiences.