The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

Ah. I thought you were talking about the performance art project.

Cad: "People just in general need to remember the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing and not lynch mob a guy or campaign to get him expelled with no evidence other than the accusation. I know Mist mists all over the place about how badly the accuser gets shamed in the community about making a rape accusation, but the accused can get fired, divorced, and shunned without a shred of evidence."

I hear you, but I don't get why everyone's so confident that SHE'S guilty of making false rape accusations. I can see how it's possible, but it honestly doesn't look so black and white to me.

And I don't mean to dismiss the seriousness of how badly false rape accusations can impact a guy's life, but let's not pretend the accused in this case isn't coming out of this a hero in the eyes of God knows how many people. He's got the enthusiastic and incredibly active support ("pretty little liar" posters being one example) of a large group of people who've made it a moral crusade to defend his innocence, sometimes in unproductive or dishonest ways. I mean, I get that the people doing so genuinely believe they've seen enough evidence to feel certain, but I can't help but see their conclusions as a biased interpretation; biased by the sheer desire to want to villainize someone (and, *Bonus!* to justify one's extensive use of the clearly fantastic "mock and ridicule" disciplinary technique). It's not like I haven't seen THAT pattern before.

That, more than anything else, is what casts doubt in my mind when I see people proselytizing so viciously. I mean, of course it's possible that the doubts I had in my head subconsciously made it easier for me to believe parts of Emma's story (or at least consider them feasible) that others find simply unbelievable. I'm not free of bias, after all, and when I realize I'm on an unwinnable side of an argument I will admit defeat. But let's not pretend that I'm never the voice of reason here. I'm still waiting on Lith for that proof of consent he was talking about... Do you now what he meant?

Cad: "There's no particular evidence of rape so if you believe her story you're taking her word for it only. Did you read that she told her friends and Nungessar that she had previously been raped and had accused another guy of rape?"

I didn't ask for evidence of rape. I asked for evidence of consent, which Lithose seeemed pretty confident existed. Do you think he's mistaken or do you just not know what he's talking about? After all, if there was proof she was lying then there's proof she made a "false statement" about him, right? She can't have consented AND been raped, right?

Cad: "There is evidence of a relationship and of him pulling away and her being upset by that, so the people coming to that conclusion are doing so because of the evidence. Just like in... Every other discussion, you're not looking at the evidence you're just taking someone's word for it and then wondering why we are distrustful. It's this little thing we like to call evidence."

I've looked at the same evidence, dude. Turns out there's another feasible explanation that the evidence supports besides "vengeful lying crazy bitch". You're the ones dismissing that explanation out of hand, essentially "taking his word for it". I'm not the one ruling out possibilities, you are. Instead of just being smarmy talking about "evidence", you might want to present some. Or would that be too productive a discussion tactic?

Cad: "I'm not speaking for Lithose or what he thinks. He can do so on his own if he chooses.

How exactly does the evidence support her version of events? What piece of evidence suggests rape? Her version of the story exists "despite" the evidence, not in accord with it."

So there is no evidence of consent then. Thanks for clearing that up.

You said there was evidence "of a relationship and of him pulling away and her being upset by that". What I saw was awkward, stilted Facebook exchanges indicative of 2 once-close friends making an attempt to "act normal" after a significant event. You see her "We need to talk" and "I love you" comments as proof that she wanted a relationship with him and that he was pulling away, I see it as proof she wanted to talk about what had happened but didn't want to scare him away by coming off as accusatory. That's her version of the events, and the evidence I've seen supports it. Why does that seem so impossible to you?

Cad: "All you're doing is looking at the evidence in light of what you want to see, and not seeing whats actually there. You're taking her story, and saying "eh, this evidence could still work assuming that her story is true." And sure. There's nothing in the messages saying "i'm sure glad you didn't rape me, that would be horrible!" but short of that, almost anything in those messages could be explained by your approach. Of course she's acting normal, she was trying to act normal so she didn't "scare" him! Do you not see how your story survives despite the evidence (which shows 2 normal people talking normally) not because the evidence supports it?"

Just. Wow.

I guess you don't realize that "looking at the evidence in light of what you want to see" is EXACTLY what I see you doing. You're choosing the less likely of 2 scenarios because that's what you want (dare I say: need?) to see. Your taking the accused's story and saying "Yeah, I guess the evidence could be interpreted that way" and calling it a day.

Cad: "You're essentially saying, yea, the evidence doesn't support rape, but that because.... {adds in extra facts also not in evidence}"

Excuse me? What "extra facts" did I add, pray tell? Her side of the story? How are you not adding "extra facts" when you say she wanted a relationship, he didn't, and she became a vindictive, crazy bitch?

Cad: "I'm saying... we have evidence that shows X. I'm going with X."

No, you're saying "Here's evidence that could be interpreted as X or Y. I'm going to confidently say that X is the 'correct' interpretation it because feels."

Lith: "Someone literally documenting they want to be fucked in the ass, and having a previous sexual relationship, and then documenting they are stalking the guy at a party in order to get the sex? Is a fuck ton of positive consent evidence."

Clearly it doesn't count as LEGAL evidence, or the alleged rapist would be suing for defamation, right? Why doesn't it though, Lith? If it's so obvious to you guys, why won't the law see it that way?

I assume you're talking about the "Fuck me in the butt" comment, which we already know wasn't necessarily meant to be taken literally, and in fact has a feasible alternate explanation (this is a recurring theme). The fact that they had had sex twice before then could not be less relevant. We know they were close. We know they fucked. None of that means Emma wasn't raped. In fact, from what I understand the way she acted after the fact was pretty typical of someone who has been raped by someone they were close to and trusted. It's certainly more typical than the "She didn't get the boyfriend she wanted so she decided to spend the next two years of her life trying to ruin his" theory everyone seems so confident in.

You and I have different ideas of what constitutes "obvious". To me it means "Can only reasonably be interpreted one way", to you it means "Whatever conforms to my world view".

Anyways... bye!

Agraza: "Rape is today what sexual harassment was yesterday. It's a real problem, but people are trying to cash in on the heightened awareness/acceptance of the problem."

Seems to me like the media is trying to cash in on the public's insatiable appetite for false rape accusations.

Every time it's suggested a woman may have falsely accused a man of rape, there is a field day at Rerolled (and certainly elsewhere). Dunham, Sulkowicz, Cosby, Rolling Stone, etc. There are people here who squeal with delight when they get to go off on another rant about how terrible the world is now that crazy, lying bitches are trying to ruin men's lives everywhere.

The media knows this, so they are eager and willing to feature controversial, (sometimes) non-conclusive stories to stoke the flames and get more clicks. They know that, just like GamerGate, there is heavy polarization in how rape stories are viewed. The "with us or against us" attitudes of the public ensure that salacious stories get tons of attention.

Is any of this news?