To prove the abuse will be hard but it can be done by psychological means.

I guess some people can't even try to understand what happens here: Can you think about your parents trying to abuse of you? the inner conflict of the father figure that should protect you and all that he should mean against the fact he actually assaulted you is a tremendous stress for a child. The love/hate relationship can't be managed well for the child until she/he grows up and understand what really happens, then to get the balls to leave behind the protective feeling that everyone feels about their parents to denounce him.

For some people it takes an eternity to get the courage to really understand and say something like your step father raped you.

Rape culture is just right on this case; fuck Allen (whose movies are terrible anyway) as well any other pedophile out there. If the guy is put on jail, he might get raped as well.

That's all well and shitty, but I think the people who scream for blood as soon as (for example) someone is charged with rape and then get all pissed off when the court finds the evidence lacking are an even worse problem than those who do the opposite.

@inhumanist: If you look at the specific point I was refuting, I think you'll find that it is.
- Woody Allen is accused of a crime but is never prosecuted. Two decades after the fact, the alleged victim claims that she is indeed a victim. Some people say "well, we can't really know", which indeed we can't. The fact that not everyone immediately jumped to the conclusion that he's definitely guilty is taken as an indication of rape culture.
- OJ Simpson is prosecuted for murder charges, but acquitted in the most controversial criminal trial in American history. He was later sued for the same crimes in a civil trial, and the court ruled unanimously against him. There are a lot of people who strongly believe he didn't do it. Using the above logic, this is clearly a stronger indication of murder culture than the above is for rape culture.

That's the thing, I don't think his movies are bad at all. I thought Annie Hall was great and I've liked the others I've seen by him. I guess this brings up the question how much you can divorce the art from the artist. And obviously, it's revolting if he did it and I don't really see a reason to doubt what Dylan said.

I've seen Midnight in Paris and that other movie Deconstructing Harry of his. Paris wasn't bad, but Deconstructing Harry was an hour and a half of Allen sucking his own dick. One of the most pretentious, self-aggrandizing things I've ever seen. Makes Ender's Game look like a positively humble, well rounded film in comparison. I gotta admit it put me off seeing more by him.

Fuck him anyway though, for the sexual abuse stuff.

Heavy metal is full of complete scumbag pieces of shit. Hip hop and punk rock too. Those happen to be three genres I probably listen to most. If I couldn't divorce art from the artist, I'd be in real trouble. Also, I trust no one that doesn't like *any* Woody Allen movies.

Haha, it basically seems like you have to be a piece of shit to make it big in hip hop these days.

Another thing I find kind of weird is how this Woody Allen thing wasn't public knowledge before. I mean, surely it was controversial when it happened, but up until this open letter everyone has seemed to have collectively forgot about it.

I do remember that the Thee Plague of Gentlemen dude got sent to jail for child molestation. I like Serpentcult, but never really been into them. Which I'm kind of grateful for because I'd feel kind of weird liking a band fronted by a child molester. And it's odd, listening to a murderer's music such as in the case of Burzum I don't care in the slightest.

It's funny how you celebrate the possibility of him going to the place where there's actually rape culture.

True enlightenment, brah.

Okay so it seems that a lot of people are pretty off in their understanding of what "rape culture" is, so I think I should provide a proper feminist perspective. Rape culture is a system that is often a product of patriarchal social structures. It thrives in an environment especially where women are regarded as much lesser in value to men. It happens because we as a society have certain ideas about how people of each gender gain their value as members of their respective gender. Gender roles create the perfect environment for rape. And gender roles aren't just about what kind of work men and women do: they are also about unfair social expectations.

E.g. man gets raped but since men are supposed to only think with their penises, no "real" crime was committed.
E.g. woman gets raped in a club but since she was wearing revealing clothing and obviously men are sex machines with no willpower, it was her fault.

I think my examples show that rape culture is bad for both men and women.

In what world do the rich and powerful suffer the same extent of the law as Johnny Average? Are you living under a rock? And as far as your whole counter point goes, it is a shame that people (read the media) always assume guilty until proven innocent but that's what sells these days. It's a shame but it's the truth. And as for the rape culture, we could only benefit from a bit more arduous belief in women who claim to have been attacked/abused.

Women or children can make false claims of sexual abuse to reap compensation. Not saying this was the case here, but 'leaning' towards the alleged victim based on their gender isn't fair, nor is it justified in light of our patriarchal society. Eliminating gender inequality means putting both parties on the same level.

Nothing works here except objectivity and fair trial. We mustn't be quick to condemn. The girl's word is as good as the rapist's in the absence of evidence. Of course (and regrettably) there can't always be evidence, but you cannot put a man in a cell unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the crime. Just my two cents as a law student.

I think you're way off base with this, even in a generic (ie. not pertaining to this case) sense. Who would voluntarily put themselves through the ordeal of humiliation and character assassination that is being the alleged victim in a sexual assault/abuse case if it wasn't actually true? A major problem with our legal systems is that "victim's word against the word of the accused" typically boils down to defending lawyers trying to prove that the woman is a liar, a slut, motivated by the money she stands to make, or whatever he can find or use to rubbish her credibility. It's appalling. And your attitude, I'm afraid, perpetuates these damaging perspectives.

Putting both parties on the level would involve taking women's accusations seriously when they have the courage to come forward

Whatever happened to the band-sanctioned downloads thread? I remember findings some decent bands in there.

Actually, of all rape reports, only 1-2% turn out to be false. I agree with fair trial but I feel you might be over-estimating the actual amount of fake reports.

It turned into a promotion thread, and that's why it got unstickied.

Sorry, but I'm basing the idea that women can make false claims on the fact that there is evidence of it actually happening. It's quite rare (something like 35 cases of false accusations among 5,600 prosecutions for rape in the UK, according to a CPS study from a couple of years ago), but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Lawyers using all the methods described to attack the victim is appalling indeed, but that's not necessarily a major problem with the legal system itself. The law is sound, and there are bodies like the SRA and Bar Standards Board in the UK that exist to hold solicitors and barristers accountable for professional misconduct. The true purpose of such a defense lawyer is to ensure the defendant's rights to fair trial are respected and to make sure the prosecution can prove they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So I fail to see what my attitude of supporting equality and fairness has anything to do with shitty lawyers.

That number might be higher if we only count accounts that gain significant media coverage, maybe? Just a guess.

Perhaps it shows the adversarial system is not so great when rapists can build a case not by pursuing truth but by beating down victims of crimes. Accusers who win their cases are victimized by this system when it is working "right". It's not so well to talk about these things only in a completely abstract way and disregard how they function practically.

Invitus: I don't recall the media covering rape incidents that are fake more than real ones... Just that they tend to like to blame the victim via the social assumption that men have no control over their penises, so women are responsible to dress in such a way that they don't get raped. Ah, double sexism... I remember hearing about an 11 year old girl getting raped by a bunch of boys and men, and all the locals commented on how slutty she was, and how good those men and boys were. That's rape culture in a nutshell.

Sure, men who get raped aren't taken seriously in western (or any) culture, but that's only a part of how society views men displaying weakness or unwillingness to have sex, as well as female-on-male violence. I don't think it's very useful to label it "rape culture" as it's too narrow and simplistic. As for your example of female rape, that's hardly a view that has any notable influence on the (western) mainstream anymore. There are instances here and there of female rape victims being treated like shit (which of course are the ones you hear about in the media, because they're the exception), but in general our society has an immense amount of sympathy for them. The whole "sluts deserve it/men are sex machines" view is what you'll hear in for example the arab world, and the extent to which it exists in western culture isn't enough to label our entire culture "rape culture".

Also, it sounds pretty arrogant the way you say you're giving us a "proper feminist perspective", like we don't know what we're talking about and along comes the feminist to save the day and educate people.

@Erosion of Humanity: learn to read.


Lawyers are supposed to do what they can to see to it that their client goes free. If there's an eyewitness testimony, they'll try to make the eyewitness seem unreliable or untrustworthy. I can see why it's upsetting that they'd try to convince the court that the victim is a liar (which is something they do regardless of crime), but I don't see how it could be any different. (If what they're saying about the victim is pretty much equivalent to slander, there should obviously be rules in place against that, but according to Poisonfume there are, so that's neat.)

On the 1-2% figure, how the hell would you even measure that?

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the US, every major rape case I've seen making the circuits on the TV news was heavily slanted in the way Rattus describes and not in any other way. It is a consistent pattern.

EDIT: Not counting cases of pedophilia, where the media was completely against the pedophiles.

I can't disagree. With that in mind, though, it seems to me that improving the integrity of the adversarial system is a better solution than countering the imbalance by leaning in favor of the victim in a trial, which is what Erosion of Humanity suggested.




While that may be what some lawyers do, it isn't what they are 'supposed' to do! Re-read the very paragraph of mine you referenced! A lawyer's duty is to justice first and then to the client. Call it idealistic, but such is the nature of the principles the law is based on.

Jason, I think you should re-read what I said. You're adding things in that I neither said nor implied. I never said your culture is all about rape, and perhaps you should also look up the word "proper." "Proper" as in "accurate to feminist ideas," in this instance.

1-2% is the range I have found based on studies done using reported rapes. It's easy to figure out that percentage based on police data. How many rapes were reported, and how many turned out to be false... Police data is connected globally so even a person who takes one stats course would be able to put this percentage together

@Poisonfume: I'm not an expert on the subject, but I happened upon the term "zealous advocacy" after a quick google search, which is apparently a principle that lawyers adhere to. Maybe I phrased things poorly in my last post, but I'm pretty sure that means lawyers should, when examining evidence and eyewitness testimonies, be on the lookout specifically for things that make the evidence unreliable, even though they shouldn't make things up.

@Rattus: I guess I assumed that you think we have a rape culture in the western world (isn't that the common feminist view, by the way?), but I didn't base my argument around that (even though it's what I argued against) so I don't really see how I misrepresented your position.

When you say they look at how many rapes turned out to be false, do you mean they sacrificed a goat to Satan to receive that knowledge, or did they just consult their crystal ball? It seems pretty damn hard to know otherwise. For example, ~0% of the cases where the accusation lead to conviction are accounted for.

I'm pissed that I'm pissed that Philip Seymour Hoffman is dead. I didn't give a flying fuck about Ledger, Walker or even Gandolfini, but Hoffman was among a VERY small coterie of actors whom I didn't actually consider to be a completely despicable human being.

Although he did choose to star in The Hunger Games...

Eh, I guess I don't feel so bad anymore.

In the Western world there is a culture of rape, but Western culture isn't all about rape. Two different ideas there. This culture affects both men and women.

And... I don't understand about the goat thing. But it's basic stats... You look at how many rape reports there are, and what the results were. Out of those reports made, you'd look at if the results were that the reports were shown to be false (which is different from a report not being followed up, charges dropped, or, uh, goat sacrifices and Satan). Police records are very consistent and therefore reliable. It's not like you need supernatural abilities to read a report, look at the results, and use a numerical representation. That's Stats 101. I don't know why you're ascribing magic to basic record-keeping abilities.

So J_Ason, how drunk was she when you found her passed out on the couch?

Ugh. Just ugh.

Please continue this discussion in another thread, it's not exactly the best subject to debate mixed into the casual conversation of the FFA.

And be nice, Nightgaunt's going to swallow a lot of souls on Super Bowl Sunday, and that's just appetizers.

@Rattus: What I'm saying is that proven to be false is not necessarily the same as false. Not all rape accusations that aren't proven true (as in lead to conviction) are false, and not all rape charges that aren't proven false are true. It's pretty simple.


Clearly drunk enough to be passed out. That much you should be able to infer on your own.

Puffed parmesan-dusted soul snacks, Soul Beer, and Nachos with melted, shredded souls.

Gotta dip those nachos in soulsa and guacasoule.

HAHA .. soulsa.

Speaking of souls, Seymour Hoffman sacrificed his to the altar of the dope gods today. Any thoughts on this?

So I hear madden predicted 8/10 bowls in the decade, and wolfram alpha has a theory too.

I wouldn't mind watching it if it was shown in my country.

I hate how everybody in America is all like "I don't watch TV" or "Fuck corporations man, they're just like, out to take our money 'cause they think we're stupid" 364 days of the year, but on superbowl sunday everyone's all like "Lol, I just watch it for the commercials"

Though the rest of everyone watches for the .. um .. the football.

It's actually really depressing. I don't read a lot of celebrity gossip bullshit stuff, but for a really long time he's given off this vague air of junkydom that's had me vaguely worried, especially considering the guy kept getting relatively small roles in well-respected movies where his performance was overshadowed by other aspects of the movie. Just seemed like a recipe for downward spiral type behavior to me. Just vibes, but I guess they turned out to be accurate.

Definitely one of my favorite actors though, so it sucks quite a bit that he's gone.

Yeah, damn shame. I remember him mentioning a while back that he had to do a few days in rehab due to a pill problem (pretty sure I'm right here). Something tells me that it was much worse than pills even back then. Heroin addicts can actually hide their addiction surprisingly well if they can sate their habit effectively, only when their cover gets blown does it become a huge taboo/deal/problem.

He's had a few problems with heroin over the years.