Thread: Skepticism About Accusations of Sexual Misconduct.

Gentlemen;


With the site preparing to close down, I thought I'd take the opportunity to discuss what makes me skeptical when I hear a woman accuse a man of some form of sexual misconduct. Now, I may ruffle some feathers by saying the following, but I acknowledge it as truth; that sexual misconduct such as harassment, assault and rape exist. I'll even say that more men than women do it. Such crimes are serious and should be punished severely. However, not every woman who accuses a man of such is telling the truth. Because such crimes are serious, and because the consequences are (and should be) serious, the effort to determine if a crime actually occurred should also be serious. This takes me back to the heart of this post. What makes you skeptical when a woman accuses a man of sexual misconduct?


No matter what, I think that the burden of proof needs to be on the accuser, like this little document called The Constitution says. This means that, at the very least, I'm going to have an attitude of “fine, she's accused him, let's see the evidence that she has.” That said, there are five things that crank up my skepticism when such accusations are leveled.


First is when the accuser levels the accusations via social media or some sort of public statement, either instead of or at the same time as going to law enforcement. To me, I see this as more of a publicity stunt than an effort to bring someone to justice.


Second is the demand for non-judicial punishment without (or before) a conviction. Demands that a man be fired from his job, that certain brands cut their endorsements with him, that he be banned from social events, or others. Such demands for punishment without a conviction fly in the face of due process, and as far as I'm concerned, that's an effort to pervert the justice system.


The third is when the accusations come several years after the fact, and the timing is very convenient for either the accuser or the accused. If a woman hasn't had contact with a man for years, then only comes forward when he's being considered for a promotion or other financial windfall makes me suspicious. When a woman hasn't had contact with a man for years, and she's about to release an autobiography or the television show she's starring in is about to be canceled, and she suddenly has to accuse him of criminal misconduct, I have major doubts.


The fourth is when whomever is judging the man tries to silence his ability to present evidence in his own defense. A prime example is the “mattress girl” case from years back. Didn't the college board that met to determine if the young man she accused would be expelled refuse to see texts that he wanted to show them? If I recall the case correctly, she sent these texts to him after the alleged rape, and they went into graphic detail describing the sexual activities that she wanted to perform with him. When a judging body refuses to let the man defend himself, I become suspicious.


The fifth and final item for me is when a woman willingly maintains interactions with the man for years after he supposedly committed a sexual misconduct against her. I'm not talking about cases when a man coerces or forces the interactions; I mean when a woman claims that her boss was committing the actions for years...yet she didn't find another job. I mean when a woman in the entertainment industry keeps going to the same agent that she claims did it, rather than finding a different agent. There are plenty of other examples but the key points to me are that the woman could have easily broke off contact but did not.


So, gentlemen, do you agree with me? Sexual misconduct is serious and not every woman who accuses a man of it is lying. Are there aspects of an accusation that make you more of a skeptic than usual?

It doesn't matter what I think or the next Joe Blow that relies on a WWW forum.

It only matters what you or your lawyer can argue in court on the day of the trial.

The laws where you live will likely be different than the laws where I live.

Seek local legal advice.

Personally I just stick to policies regarding women and their endless lies.

1. Never vote for a female politician. Ever. Because they’re 100% man hating feminists. Cross party lines, skip vote, go for the worst option, etc. there is precisely a 0% chance she isn’t corrupt and will happily support killing millions.

2. Any jury I’m on is guaranteed to be a hung jury. Any woman charged with a crime is voted guilty, despite any argument or evidence. Any man accused of a crime against a woman will always be voted not guilty despite all arguments and evidence.

Why? Untold men have been killed, their lives destroyed, their futures eliminated because women lie. All the time. They never stop lying. Women will just casually name drop lies about a man out of cheap revenge or a temporary power trip, while men are killed or imprisoned. Women are literally incapable of not lying at any time of the word “responsibility” or “accountability” is within the same zip code. They seek out to destroy. And then don’t ever think about it again.

Not a single feminist or woman ever brings it up. It’s just endless lies. It would be pure hatred if it wasn’t just blasé apathy.

For that reason denying them power is my goal. Convicting them of crimes guilt or innocent is the goal. Freeing men from women’s lies is my goal.

How many men have to be murdered because of women’s endless lying? How many more female teachers raping students have to be ignored?

If a few innocent women get their slaps on the wrist, oh well. Fight fire with fire I say. Since the rule of law is over, then it’s over for everyone. Since women demand supremacy and unequal treatment and for “equity”, then they get it.

This isn’t a “few bad apples”, this is all. Simps clinging to childish, pussy worshipping beliefs is how they get away with it.

I would bet every hair on my ass that some of the women making accusations are flat out lying. They know that their word carries much more weight over that of any man, especially in today’s culture. Why do they do it? I think you covered a lot of the possible reasons in your post. I also suspect that being rejected is another possible reason. When a woman’s self-esteem takes a hit she will do anything for revenge. Why not make some guy’s life a living hell if she has the power to do so?

That all being said, there’s a lot of sick, perverted bastards running around out there. Guys who commit sex crimes are the true waste and filth of society and deserve everything horrible that happens to them.

Originally Posted by DangZagnut

Personally I just stick to policies regarding women and their endless lies.

1. Never vote for a female politician. Ever. Because they’re 100% man hating feminists. Cross party lines, skip vote, go for the worst option, etc. there is precisely a 0% chance she isn’t corrupt and will happily support killing millions.

2. Any jury I’m on is guaranteed to be a hung jury. Any woman charged with a crime is voted guilty, despite any argument or evidence. Any man accused of a crime against a woman will always be voted not guilty despite all arguments and evidence.

Why? Untold men have been killed, their lives destroyed, their futures eliminated because women lie. All the time. They never stop lying. Women will just casually name drop lies about a man out of cheap revenge or a temporary power trip, while men are killed or imprisoned. Women are literally incapable of not lying at any time of the word “responsibility” or “accountability” is within the same zip code. They seek out to destroy. And then don’t ever think about it again.

Not a single feminist or woman ever brings it up. It’s just endless lies. It would be pure hatred if it wasn’t just blasé apathy.

For that reason denying them power is my goal. Convicting them of crimes guilt or innocent is the goal. Freeing men from women’s lies is my goal.

How many men have to be murdered because of women’s endless lying? How many more female teachers raping students have to be ignored?

If a few innocent women get their slaps on the wrist, oh well. Fight fire with fire I say. Since the rule of law is over, then it’s over for everyone. Since women demand supremacy and unequal treatment and for “equity”, then they get it.

This isn’t a “few bad apples”, this is all. Simps clinging to childish, pussy worshipping beliefs is how they get away with it.

I like that jury duty one. I'm going to do this if I'm ever called.

Offhand, I believe the Islamic system requires 2 women's testimony to verify something vs only 1 man's testimony. I think you must judge the totality of the evidence, including video tapes like the one of the "Gentle Giant" beating a female teacher before rendering judgment. Flatly saying men good, women bad on a jury is not correct. See the "Gentle Giant" video in the random section of this blog for an example - I would immediately find that man guilty of attempted murder.

Originally Posted by Juggernaut

I like that jury duty one. I'm going to do this if I'm ever called.

Sexual assault: I think it should weigh in also under what circumstances the assault took place. Not all assaults are 100% the man's fault or 100% false allegations.

A tale from another forum I use to post on:
Husband writes in saying his wife was out bar hoping at a "Girl's Night Out", she gets really drunk. A man that she knows offers to take her home, they end up taking a taxi to his place and making out. She ends up giving him head, when he puts the condom on, she backs out and walks home.

All the women on the forum are claiming he sexually assaulted her: She was drunk, and he should not have touched her. The man should be charged. The trouble with that if she is totally innocent because she was drinking, then he is also totally innocent because he was drinking also (not as drink as she was but still under the influence). There was no forcing or restricting by either party, it was all done under free will.

The real victim, the husband, was having a hard time getting over it.
The male comments were like: If you really love her and she shows remorse, stops abusing alcohol etc. forgive her and move on.
The female comments were like: Why does what happened to your wife bother you? Your wife is the victim, not you!!! You should be supporting your wife!!!

Originally Posted by RustyNuts

Sexual assault: I think it should weigh in also under what circumstances the assault took place. Not all assaults are 100% the man's fault or 100% false allegations.

A tale from another forum I use to post on:
Husband writes in saying his wife was out bar hoping at a "Girl's Night Out", she gets really drunk. A man that she knows offers to take her home, they end up taking a taxi to his place and making out. She ends up giving him head, when he puts the condom on, she backs out and walks home.

All the women on the forum are claiming he sexually assaulted her: She was drunk, and he should not have touched her. The man should be charged. The trouble with that if she is totally innocent because she was drinking, then he is also totally innocent because he was drinking also (not as drink as she was but still under the influence). There was no forcing or restricting by either party, it was all done under free will.

The real victim, the husband, was having a hard time getting over it.
The male comments were like: If you really love her and she shows remorse, stops abusing alcohol etc. forgive her and move on.
The female comments were like: Why does what happened to your wife bother you? Your wife is the victim, not you!!! You should be supporting your wife!!!

Any time I hear of a woman supposedly in a relationship that likes late night girls nights out with drinking/bars/clubs, I think there's good chance she's a whore...most likely her friends too.

Originally Posted by Edwardhaskell

Any time I hear of a woman supposedly in a relationship that likes late night girls nights out with drinking/bars/clubs, I think there's good chance she's a whore...most likely her friends too.

It's kinda strange how that works:

A woman and her friends get together and talk (etc) the chances are your relationship with her will suffer in one way, shape, or form.

A man gets isolated from his friends and his relationship with the woman will suffer in one way, shape, or form. Normally here, he puts her on a pedestal as she is his only friend and lover, she looses respect for him, and the relationship is doomed.

Another point is that rape is a crime, and the constitution of the USA clearly states that only the court system may try crimes. Every one of these kangaroo courts needs to be charged with contempt of court.

Feminist claim that campuses are hotbeds of rape, that a third or a half of all female students get raped. If that were true, then the campuses should be shut down and all the staff and faculty tried as accessories.

Originally Posted by RustyNuts

Sexual assault: I think it should weigh in also under what circumstances the assault took place. Not all assaults are 100% the man's fault or 100% false allegations.

A tale from another forum I use to post on:
Husband writes in saying his wife was out bar hoping at a "Girl's Night Out", she gets really drunk. A man that she knows offers to take her home, they end up taking a taxi to his place and making out. She ends up giving him head, when he puts the condom on, she backs out and walks home.

All the women on the forum are claiming he sexually assaulted her: She was drunk, and he should not have touched her. The man should be charged. The trouble with that if she is totally innocent because she was drinking, then he is also totally innocent because he was drinking also (not as drink as she was but still under the influence). There was no forcing or restricting by either party, it was all done under free will.

The real victim, the husband, was having a hard time getting over it.
The male comments were like: If you really love her and she shows remorse, stops abusing alcohol etc. forgive her and move on.
The female comments were like: Why does what happened to your wife bother you? Your wife is the victim, not you!!! You should be supporting your wife!!!

I think that this is a very good point. The "all or nothing" approach doesn't really accomplish anything. Yes, every incident has to be looked at on its own circumstances and merit. The point that I was trying to make with the original post was that there are certain aspects to a claim of assault that make me skeptical if the assault took place at all; and I was wondering if anyone else had aspects that made them skeptical. I am no authority on sexual assault, this was just an invitation for debate.

Let's look at the scenario that you described. There's plenty of "scum" behavior on both the man and the woman's part. A married woman who consents to sexual contact with another man is being scum, as is a man who consents to sexual contact with a married woman. That isn't really the issue; the issue is, did an assault take place? You were correct in saying that if the woman was assaulted because she was drunk, then she also assaulted him because he was drunk, as well.

I don't know the full details, but if she didn't promptly report this to law enforcement, I'm going to be skeptical if she really considers it an assault. I know, my opinion means nothing, but I'm still going to voice it.

Originally Posted by Jadedoldman65

—I think that the burden of proof needs to be on the accuser, like this little document called The Constitution says.

I absolutely agree, that’s common sense.


—What makes you skeptical when a woman accuses a man of sexual misconduct?

Just the accusation itself is enough to trip my radar that something is off, and there’s information witnessing her physical demeanor and tactics.

I am inclined to not respect much judgment of a woman in any case, and they can become demons when seemingly possessed…So, right off the bat, I’m not impressed, if there is zero evidence and she has something to gain, she is an annoyance…

—When a judging body refuses to let the man defend himself, I become suspicious.

I’ve witnessed this in life from the testimony of friends and acquaintances. Most judges that I’ve encountered in life are fair, but I have experienced bias, cronyism, if not corruption first hand. When it’s obvious that there is injustice, I am naturally inclined to express the perfectly healthy emotion of anger…


—demands for punishment without a conviction fly in the face of due process, and as far as I'm concerned, that's an effort to pervert the justice system.

Absolutely agree.

Very astute observation.

No police report at the time? No rape kit taken for evidence at the time? Sexual assault didn't happen.

By the way, some younger guys can be just as bad, partly because they were feminized by being brought up by single mothers. Jeff Smith, the "Frugal Gourmet", was brought down by two young adult guys claiming he had molested them when they were kids. In the pattern we see often with women, they didn't want criminal charges, but money. The allegations were never proven, but they wiped out Smith's cooking show on TV and his book sales.

Originally Posted by K-Dog

No police report at the time? No rape kit taken for evidence at the time? Sexual assault didn't happen.

That didn't seem to help Bill Cosby.

All the "trials" take place via the media only for the courts and juries to decide in favour of the accused which in turn causes the usual outrage from those who think that an accusation is all it should take to find a man guilty.

It's also unfair to accuse someone decades later, especially if that person is now of senior age and memory is a subjective thing for anyone.

Originally Posted by WheelBarrow

That didn't seem to help Bill Cosby.

Yeah, I'm just talking about the way it should work.

Originally Posted by Kryptic

It's also unfair to accuse someone decades later, especially if that person is now of senior age and memory is a subjective thing for anyone.

This is why I am more skeptical of an accusation that isn't reported until after a long time has passed. It doesn't even have to be long enough for senior age to affect memory. The fact is, witnesses start forgetting details. Let's go back to the example Rustynuts gave previously, in which the woman and the man, both drunk, took the cab to his place. If there's a prompt report of wrongdoing, the police can interview other people at the bar(s) where the two were at, as well as the cab driver that took them to his place. They might even be able to get security camera footage from the bar(s) or other facilities. Was she all over him? Was he all over her? Was he buying her drinks left and right? Was she doing the same to him? All of these should be considered in determining if an assault took place. But, after a week or so, the cab driver and bar tenders are probably going to forget the incident. After 30 days or so, the security footage is probably going to be overwritten by more current footage. All that will be left is him claiming that they were both drunk and the encounter was consensual while she's claiming that it couldn't be consensual because she was drunk.
Personally, I don't think that it's a coincidence when a woman waits until the evidence is gone or degraded before making the accusation.