Oh boy, you know I GOTTA Chime in on this one.
You guys ready to read some stuff that will blow you away? Cool. As the resident "been falsely accused of this sh*t and aint takin it no more", I feel I should add to this discussion.
First off: William Kennedy Smith and the false accuser PATRICIA BOWMAN. (p.s. I watched the trial - it was kinda relevant to me)
a) Will smith and PATTY BOWMAN (screw rape-shield law, why isn't she in jail?) had sex, then he basically blew her off afterwards. Guess what, so the hell what? Anyone seen American Pie? Two high school sweethearts have sex, both are virgins, next day the girl dumps him to have fun in college. Now, simple test - reverse the genders and watch the popularity of the movie plummet.
b) ahhh, but I did say FACTS didn't I? The jury, who's foreperson was a strong woman, took only 75 minutes to decide that Will Smith was innocent. Think of the implications. They KNEW they were on nationwide (and worldwide) TV. They took 1 vote, decided that it was too quick, rehashed the case, and voted again, then returned a not guilty on all counts. It only takes 1 person to say "not guilty", but you can get retried. It was a unianimous vote.
c) the jury said afterwards that PATTY BOWMAN's story was so implausible that SHE was the reason they didn't convict. They noticed that the only time she became too choked up to answer questions was when the questions tripped up her own drunken story. Patty was wearing a shirt the night of her "attack". It said: "I am a sexual threat". Anyone out there hear about that? Not important you say? What if Will had been wearing the same shirt? It was a Madonna shirt and quite popular at the time.
Ahhhh Yesss .... the "1 in 4" "STUDY"
Ahhh, you noticed it was commisioned by MS Magazine. Did you know that 80% of the respondants did not consider themselves to be rape victims? I know, I know, these poor uneducated (read: non-indoctrinated) dears had no idea that they had been violated until MS magazine had the courage to tell them they were victims. Who cares if they disagreed even after being told? Also, and lets not forget: how you get a conclusion to a study is based upon how you ask/frame the questions, which questions you ask (and don't ask), and who is interpreting the data. Mind if I deliniate?
a) the questions were framed in maximum victimspeak. They were asked in they were "touched" in a way they did not want. etc etc. They were asked if they had ever had sex while the other person provided alcohol. Getting the picture yet?
b) Which questions were asked, and just as important, which ones were NOT asked. Does anyone here think that these women were given questions like:
---"Have you had sex when someone provided you with alcohol?" and the corresponding question to make sure the responder was being honest and fair: " Have you had sex when YOU provided someone with alcohol?" or lets try another example : "have you ever been pressured into sex, or said no and then had sex anyways" and the reverse "have YOU ever pressured someone into having sex, or had them say no and then had sex anyways" ---- you get the point. This survey was framing the answers before the questions ever got asked. See, if the questions had shown that the respondents OWN culpability had been on the line also the, sorry to say, natural genderthink of most women to go into "victim think" would have been evident. ... but, let's move on...
c) And of course - Who is interpreting the data? Ok, this forum is a biased crowd I admit, but does ANYONE here THINK that "MS" magazine was going to PUBLISH a study that found a LOW incidence of date-rape? And when they got back the results that 1 in 20 women had been the victim of assault they couldn't publish THAT.(1 in 4 --- minus the 80% who did not think they were raped is 1 in 20 --- or 5%) And let's be serious, even some of the women who thought they had been raped might have answered in the affirmative on some of the "questionable" behavior catagories that got them listed as victims. In simple speech, the women surveyed would have been guilty of "date-rape" themselves. Guess "MS" didn't want to ask THOSE questions. Give THAT some thought.
This post is already long, but let me help you on some things you DIDN'T read about in this article. Where is the incidence of gay/bi/LESBIAN rape? Wanna know why it's absent? These people, who give out the false stats, are mostly lesbian man-haters. Seriously. I have friends who are lesbians. I don't give a crap who sleeps with who, I DO care WHO IS OUT TO PUT ME IN PRISON!! The rate of lesbian DV is just as high, or higher than hetero DV. Ever hear that stat? No? Why not? Ever hear in this type of column about **1** case of a man totally falsely accused? Ok, not in this column that was linked, but you "heard" about one? And I don't mean on a men's forum. Ok, but notice the DETAIL of the stories of these women. Notice that when a man is accused of rape the step by god awful step of his ruin is not listed, catagorized, laid out, examined, and given empathy. Hmmmm, seems that there is a DELIBERATE attempt to villify one gender. These man hating lesbians have NO DESIRE to see date-rape end. None. Trust me, it would take a page or two to post it, but I could lay it out in black and white. Everyone here knows I try very hard to write in a lot of facts. Yes, I am very passionate about what I write and have strong opinions. But I tell you with a strong degree of certainty that the DV and date rape (read: life-rape) industries have NO INTEREST at all in healing or helping victims. They want to hurt men, gain power, and get more money. As more threads come up, I will post these positions with accompanying facts.
Peace to all,
L Steven Beene
