Conference quark::mennotes

    >	Do you think I might one day be arrested for indecent assault after 
>	somebody saw me kissing or cuddling one of my sons?

    Yes, I sure do. There are people in this world who think that men are
    capable only of harming kids.

    I spend a lot of time in a grade school. I'm on the school board and my 
    wife works there running an after school program during the school year 
    and a summer recreation program. I avoid being alone with kids, especially 
    the younger ones, as much as possible. The number of false claims going 
    around has me quite nervous. It's just common sense to protect one
    self.

    There are, to be sure, far too many people doing bad things to kids.
    I'd rather not take the chance of being suspected of being one of them.

    			Alfred

Not only do "women abuse too", but I've seen statistics which claim that
more than half of child sexual abuse is done by women.  I've also read of men 
being denied employment in the child care business because they're male. 

My situation is much like Alfred's.  I too work in the schools, but am careful
not to put myself in any situation which might leave me open to even the
suggestion of "improper" contact.  I also find myself being careful regarding
my 9-year-old son, though hugs from his dad are still important to him (and
he still gets them.)  

It's a terrible world we live in when a father has to worry about giving
his child a hug.

				Steve

    A man can be arrested for changing his daughters dipers too. He can be
    arrested for bouncing his child on his knee. Going swimming and
    changing the childs bathing suit. He can be arrested for just about
    anything when it comes to the nurturing of children. No wounder men
    cannot nurture our children. 

    
    I have chaperoened two trips with my daughters K class.  There is a
    little girl who took a real shine to me (runs up and gives me hug when
    she sees me).  It makes me very uncomfortable and I find myself backing
    away just for the reasons cited about worrying what others will think.  
    It makes me feel bad that I have to act this way.
    
    
    Mike

>    A man can be arrested for changing his daughters dipers too. He can be

Why do you believe this?  It does not fit with anything I know of the law or 
the police.  Not that an accusation is not the same thying as an arrest.

>   No wounder men cannot nurture our children. 

Men have had problems with nurturing long before the current panic about
child abuse.  That panic may add to the problems, but it certainly did 
not cause them.

A lot of what contributes to men's fears about unjust accusations of
child abuse is that there are many, many cases of women falsely accusing their
husbands (or ex-husbands) of child abuse merely as a weapon in a divorce or
custody suit.  Of course, there are some justified accusations, but for the
majority of fathers who would rather slit their own throats rather than
abuse their children, fear of possible accusation is very real.

			Steve

    I think my ex would have rather slit his own throat than change a
    diaper!!   :-)   (Of course, I don't think he would ever abuse a child
    either.)
    
    But, even as a female, I'm afraid to touch other people's kids today,
    even to give a cute baby a hug, because even I'm afraid that someone
    would yell out - Stop that woman!  She's molesting my child!
    
    It really does seem sometimes that all anybody has to do is point their
    finger at someone and say they molested or abused a child, and, even
    without any backing proof, hordes of people seem to materialize from
    the woodwork ready to lynch the unfortunate accused.
    
    Last week I saw my ex-sister-in-law's 18 month old son, who is
    adorable, for the first time, and it seemed good to be able to dare to
    hug him.  I thought, wow, I can actually give this baby a hug and she
    isn't going to think I'm doing anything dirty!!
    
    Lorna
    

    CSSE::NEILSEN
    
    Perhaps you should come join us some tuesday night and watch. Don't
    have to say anything. Just sit there and listen to some of the common
    crappie that happens. As Steve pointed out. There is much of this stuff
    that is false acusation. There is some that is real, I have a case that
    is clearly real if you read the note titled Dream. 
    
    There are some women who will not nurture their children. Yet they will
    wrap themselves in the flag that is for the best interst of the child.
    I know several of these women. Some of them were tenants of mine.
    
    The histeria of men being such vile vilians has reached a preportion
    where there are some men who I have read dont want to be men. Kinda
    reminds me of stuff that I read years ago in reguards to the Civil
    Rights movement.

    ...........'increase in child abuse etc.'
    
    I am not sure there IS an actual increase.  There certainly is more
    REPORTING child abuse..  child abuse was under wraps (not talked about
    and ignored) in the past, but it was still going on.  I wonder if what
    we PERCIEVE as an increase in abuse is an increased awareness and
    increased willingness to report it as well as an increase in false
    accusations since its on peoples' minds so much more now.
    
    It does seem to have turned into a witch hunt though.  (I know that
    it really happens and that true abusers should be reported).
    
    Jeff

    	I confess to having changed nappies on all of my children. My son
    was 11 when my younger daughter was born, so he was taught how to do it
    too, which could be a useful skill since he gets married next month.
    
    	Up to a couple of years ago my younger daughter insisted that I
    wash her hair for her in the bath - she was in a phase of not getting
    on with her mother - and since she was nearly reaching puberty at the
    time *I* was a little uncomfortable, though it didn't bother my wife or
    daughter. When she actually reached puberty she suddenly discovered how
    to wash her own hair.

    
    It's just another symptom of the society we live in and IMHO one we have to
    accept
    
    It's like going to a store nowadays. When you enter, there's a Security
    Guard, Video Camera and assistants hovering everywhere. You feel that
    you are being watched. The result is, you are cautious about how you
    handle the goods in case you may be percieved as being a shop-lifter.
    You know you're not going to steal anything but the owners of the store
    don't and they just want to protect their merchadise from other people
    who appear just as ordinary and innocent as you do !
    
    O.K is is uncomfortable having to watch your actions when you're
    dealing with kids, but if it prevents one kid from being molested by
    somebody who appears just as ordinary and innocent as you do, the
    discomfort is worth it.
    
    It's the apparent discrimination which gets to me. Nobody ever seems to
    think that a woman would molest their child but men are constantly
    suspected. Why, if we are to believe that 50%+ of sexual assaults, on
    children, are committed by women, should this be the case ?
    Do women abuse this unfounded position of trust ? Is it because men are
    *watched* more closly that they get less opportunity to abuse ? Is it
    because women are employed more frequently in child care roles ?
    Whatever the question/answer we need a solution.
    
    Just as a matter of interest a recent note in Wommannotes titled
    "Child Rape from a parents perspective" (I think) deals with an
    incident where a 13 year old *female* babysitter molested a 3-4 year
    old little girl.
    
    It is one more case which seems to confirm by suspicion that an abuser
    is likely to have been previously abused. Logically if the number of
    children being abused is reduced the number of future abusers could also 
    be reduced. The begining of the end has to start somewhere.
    
    I know this is a contentious statement, but I'm not saying that all of
    the abused become abusers, just that the probability is higher that
    they will.
    
    This note has rambled a lot but I hope my point is clear. For reasons
    which I rather not discuss in this forum this issue is one which upsets
    me and angers me. It's like a lot of things today, our actions are
    determined by what others do rather than what we would want to do
    ourselves, but that's the way of things, unfortunately. 
    
    Good Luck,
    
    Peter.

    
    
    	This note is one of the most depressing ones that I have read in
    	a long, long time. Especially so when I read replies from people
    	whose opinions I generally respect, such as .1. It is indeed a sad
    	state of affairs in this society when a man cannot openly show his
    	love and affection for his offspring without being scrutinized by
    	people watching for possible molestations.
    
    	John

>    O.K is is uncomfortable having to watch your actions when you're
>    dealing with kids, but if it prevents one kid from being molested by
>    somebody who appears just as ordinary and innocent as you do, the
>    discomfort is worth it.
 
	But *does* it prevent anyone from molesting kids? I wonder. How does
	my watching every action for ways it might be misinterprited help?
	Those interested in molesting children watch what they do very closely
	to avoid being found out. I tend to think that the harm caused by
	children not getting the attention they deserve is greater than any
	percieved benifit.

		Alfred

    It is really sad to see "where" we are where values are concerned in
    regards to family and trust in the generosity of human beings...
    
    but, this is progress, isn't it? progress and freedom for all!
    (regardles consequences...)
    

I don't feel sad or shameful because men must consider how their actions 
towards children may appear to a third party.  

I do feel sad about children who are abused and adults who are falsely 
accused of abuse.  If some sensible precautions can limit either, then
that is OK with me.  Irrational fears and excessive precautions are not 
OK with me.

.16> values are concerned in regards to family 

The more we value "good enough" families, the more we should work to prevent 
the abuse we know does occur.  Preventing abuse is a way of supporting family 
values, not denying them.

>and trust in the generosity of human beings...

We know that in this world, our trust must be limited.  We have known that
"trust in the generosity of human beings" is dangerous, ever since those 
Trojans accepted that wooden horse.  I acknowledge that limited trust every 
time I sign a credit card receipt, and experience it directly every time 
they check the signature and expiration date.

>    but, this is progress, isn't it? progress and freedom for all!

It is progress, only in the sense that we have come to recognize that child 
abuse is a real problem.  So we take some precautions against it, just as we
take precautions against credit card fraud.  These precautions diminish our
freedom, of course.  If we lived in a world where everyone could be trusted, 
we could live freely, without any precautions.

>    (regardles consequences...)
 
I recognize that these precautions have consequences, most of them negative.
I would rather live in a world where they were unnecessary.

    My son who works for the child development day care at Marlboro High
    School and has received excellant references from them is unable to
    find a job in the Child Care field. He is not being hired because he
    is male which....as we all know... is discrimination. Proving it is
    difficult although we are considering it. This is definitely due to
    the increased visibility of child abuse. As has been pointed out...
    women are just as capable of abusing children.
    
    There have been several other little 'incidents' that to me indicate
    the atmosphere of paranoia we currently live in. One was a FALSE
    rumour from a previous girlfriend (she admitted she had lied when
    overwhelming evidence pointed to the truth). She had stated that my
    son had 'forced' his way into the house where she was babysitting. 
    Nothing could have been furthur from the truth....thank goodness he
    had witnesses with him all that night...I shudder to think where this
    lie could have gotten him. Needless to say this girl is no longer
    welcome anywhere near my family.....and we did speak with her parents
    about the implications of this kind of false statement.
    
    The other incident was from my son's stepmother concerning his brother.
    She was worried that because 'C' squirmed when his diaper was changed
    that this could be a symtom of child abuse at her daycare center!!!
    Now this is a normal active almost two year old who has as sunny a
    disposition as you could want in a child. I've never know a 2 year old
    to really lie quietly while her/his diaper was being changed. Again
    the ramifications to innocent people if she had followed through on
    this 'thought' are staggering.
    
    Granted we have to be aware of this things. Being a victim of child
    abuse (not by family but 'neighbours') I certainly can understand the
    need for concern. Yet I feel that we've gone too far and many are too
    careless with their accusations.
    
    My son is great with children...always has been. Yet I feel that he
    would be less vulnerable in another area of study. What a great loss
    to himself and to all those children he could have reached.
    
    I truly hope we can find a balance here. People need to be touched in
    a human way. We know what deprivation of these things does to people.
    I truly hope we won't become a nation of robots afraid to have any
    contact with other human beings.
    
    I feel for my son and all the other males out there who are warm
    compassionate human beings all being branded with the same brush.
    
     

    Like virtually everything else that can be ferreted out by the media
    and waved in front of the public, child abuse is now the subject of a
    serious epidemic of witch hunts.
    
    Best of luck you your unfortunate son!

    I've been on vacation for a while, so I've been away from things.
    My $0.02 is that there should be severer penalties for the false
    accusations.  If for nothing else, in rape as well as in child abuse,
    the more false accusations there are, the more people question real
    accusations. However, there is little or no penalty, or prosecution
    thereof, of false accusations.  

    I recall a case a few years ago where a woman in the Midwest was
    ordered to do community service and take out an ad on radio or tv or
    something apologizing the the falsely accused male.  From all the
    squawking she did, you'd have thought *she* was the victim.

    Sadly people have learned that there are possible high gains and little
    or no penalty for false accusation.  However, as stated earlier, those
    who may be hurt most by false accusation in the long run may be the 
    real victims.
    
    fred();

    
    There ARE very strong (costly) civil laws against slander and libel. I
    think people who are victimized by false accusations need to prepare
    themselves to use those laws, perhaps even as they face the first
    accusations.

 Which gives you no recourse if the person doing the slander has
no assets. It might as well be legal for the unwealthy to slander
and libel.

    re .22, oh, wow, something I can afford!!  :-)
    
    

    RE:  .22
    
    What financial recourse do you have if somebody rapes you, leaving you
    with thousands of dollars in medical bills and a ruined life, and if
    that somebody has no assets?
    
    Would you say that it might as well be legal for the unwealthy to rape?
    
    Laura

    Whether or not the person accusing you of a crime you are not guilty of
    has assets or not.... fighting back immediately makes a statement.
    YOU ARE NOT GUILTY.  A rather important point in these times of ruined
    lives from false accusations.
    
    Jeff

>    What financial recourse do you have if somebody rapes you, leaving you
>    with thousands of dollars in medical bills and a ruined life, and if
>   that somebody has no assets?

 None.

>    Would you say that it might as well be legal for the unwealthy to rape?

 Rape is punishable by criminal penalties. Of course, you knew that.

    It would appear that criminal penalties are hardly a deterrent, Doctah. 
    And you knew that.
    
    It occurs that if you're *really* poor, three squares a day and a fresh
    change of clothes might be just the ticket.

>    It occurs that if you're *really* poor, three squares a day and a fresh
>    change of clothes might be just the ticket.

 On the other hand, rapists frequently have other things to contend with
in prison. Including poetic justice.

 The fact that "it isn't a deterrent" to whatever degree you feel it ought to
be is irrelevent; the point is that there _are_ criminal penalties that apply
and they aren't exactly pleasant even if they aren't a great change for
some inmates. It's not quite the same as there being no penalties, which is
essentially the case when someone with no assets and insubstantial income
violates a civil statute. If what we are talking about is as equivalent as
you seem to think, would you be willing to swap penalties for the two crimes?

    
>>    It occurs that if you're *really* poor, three squares a day and a fresh
>>    change of clothes might be just the ticket.
>
> On the other hand, rapists frequently have other things to contend with
>in prison. Including poetic justice.

    People do wind up in prison because they need three squares and a fresh
    change of clothes. Also if they need medical attention. According to
    staff people I've talked to in the local jail, they also expect a rise
    in population when the weather gets real cold. These people usually
    pick something minor to get jailed for. Rape isn't it.

    Rapists in jail do have other things to contend with. They're not high
    on the prison pecking order. Though they are much higher than people
    who hurt children and are not as "unsafe" as you might think. I've seen
    interactions between "regular" (id non sexual) offenders and both
    rapists and child molesters. Let's just say that you can't tell who the
    rapists are by the way they're treated but you can tell who the child
    molesters are. I would *not* want to be labeled a child molester in
    prison. That's scary.

    			Alfred

    re .29

    I would not want to be in prison in the first place.  Bottom line
    is there _are_ penalties for rape, etc.  There are no penalties,
    for all practical purposes, for false accusation.  To try to justify
    false accusation on the basis that the penalties for rape are not
    always enforced is pure poppycock and hypocrisy.  
    
    In fact, in the point I tried to make earlier, the more false
    accusation there is, the more the real victims of rape will suffer
    because the more people will be skeptical of real accusations.  I
    would think that those who are concerned (not that I'm not) about real
    rape would be  those who would be screaming for the heads of those who
    commit false accusation.  Instead they seem to compound the problem by
    trying to foo-foo false accusation as a trivial problem.

    It's much easire for me to imagine going to jail because of false
    accusation than it is to imagine myself going to jail for rape.  The
    one I have control over, the other, I may not.  
    
    fred();

    Maybe if there was a punishable recourse for false accusations there
    would be less of it.

I read in the paper this morning of a woman (in England, I think) who was
successfully prosecuted for blackmail from false rape charges.  Seems she'd
be hitchhiking, allow a man to give her a ride, and then threaten to accuse
him of rape unless he gave her money.

In the same paper, a local woman has recanted kidnapping charges against
a policeman she had been dating; the policeman had been suspended from the
force without pay due to her unsubstantiated claims.

				Steve

    How common is the false accusation of rape?  Y'all are talking as if it
    were an everyday occurence.
    
    When you consider how strongly the system deters women from bringing
    valid accusations of rape, only a nut (or someone out to make a buck
    from a celebrity charge) would go to all that bother for a false
    accusation. 
    
    I'm not saying it doesn't happen.  It does.  I'm just saying don't get
    all hot under the collar and anxious about it.  The odds of it
    happening to you or someone you know are miniscule.
    
    Do you know anyone this has happened to, aside from reading an
    occasional report in the newspaper?
    
    Get real.
    
    Laura

    
    Laura,
    
    
    Only a nut would kill someone else when it isn't in self defense.  It
    happens every day.  I don't know if the false accusations occur every
    day, but I know it is used in custody battles, divorce hearings, etc.
    Murder doesn't happen to the majority of the people either, I guess
    that makes it (murder), "mostly a non-problem" as well.
    
    
    Mike  

    re .33

>    When you consider how strongly the system deters women from bringing
>    valid accusations of rape, only a nut 

    This is _precisely_ because the system fears and guards against 
    false accusation.  The more evidence of false accusation, the
    more real accusation will be questioned to protect against it.

>    I'm not saying it doesn't happen.  It does.  I'm just saying don't get
>    all hot under the collar and anxious about it.  The odds of it
>    happening to you or someone you know are minuscule.

    The cases were false accusation are _proven_ are rare.  It _has_
    happened to someone I know.  However, I'm not surprised that
    you are not all that worried about it because the likelihood of
    it happening to _you_ are almost nill.  The _possibility_ of
    it happening to me or someone I know, however, is very real, as
    noted in this string.  There is no penaly or stigma for false
    accusation, but the doubt can follow the victim every bit as
    much as being raped can follow the rape victim.

    Even if the person is found "not guilty"  (false accusation not
    proven, but defendant not found guilty) he can be ruined in 
    reputation and financially.

    fred();

> The _possibility_ of it happening to me or someone I know, however, is 
> very real, as noted in this string.  

I bemusedly wonder if set of men_who_fear_false_accusations think their
numbers are as large as is the set of women_and_children_who_fear_rape.  
Or if they imagine the magnitude of that fear is as large.  Or if they
imagine the probabilities of their actually having that fear come true
anywhere near as great.

If they do, I have news for them; their numbers aren't as large, their
fears aren't as large, and the probabilities are miniscule by comparison
as well as in the absolute sense.

But if things were different, perhaps men would actually be motivated to
start solving the social problem of the society manifested by men_who_rape.
Go ahead, guys, convince me.

DougO

    
    re .36
    
    Ok Doug, one more time.  
    
    Our court system and our society, indeed the Constitution,
    comes down _heavily_ on the side of protecting the innocent, 
    even to the point of letting a _bunch_ of the guilty go in order
    to protect the _few_ innocent that may be falsely or wrongly 
    accused. Has it gone too far?  Another debate for another time?
    
    Considering this, false accusation has a _big_ affect on the real
    rape victim, who is now treated with more suspicion in order to protect
    from false accusation.   Therefore dealing with false accusation is
    indeed a part of dealing with putting the real guilty behind bars.
    
    fred();

yes, yes, yes, Fred, I heard that before.  The question before you is,
how badly will more men have to be frightened of the false accusation
before enough men as a force in our society start changing the society
to deal with the real problem, ie, men who rape?  Are YOU motivated enough?
As I said before: convince me.

DougO

    re .38  

    What would you suggest could be done about the "real problem"?

    I support the laws against rape.  The prisons are full (which is one of
    the problems).  I even support more prisons  to lock up more of the
    guilty.  The only deterrent to rape as well as to false accusation will
    be to punish the guilty. 

    However, one thing I will _not_ support is letting more false
    accusation go in order to lock up more accused.  It then becomes
    a case of guilt-by-accusation.  Admittedly I'm personally more
    concerned about things that will affect _me_.  The chances of me
    getting raped are rather slim (although in this day and age, who 
    knows).  I do have daughters, and I do try to protect them as
    best I can.  I pitty the guy who tries to rape either one of them.
    He'll probably end up sightless, legless, and crotchless.

    A question to you.  Would you support the same penalty for _proven_
    false accusation as for _proven_ rape?  IMHO that is one thing
    that could be done that would benefit _both_ sides.  It's a vicuous
    circle  and interrelated.  Rapists get off because the courts and 
    society is concerned about false accusation which allows more rapists 
    back on the street.  Therefore doing something about false accusation
    _is_ doing something about helping make it easier to remove rapists
    from the street.

    But Pres. Clinton says integrity and character doesn't matter.

    fred();

    
    Doug,
    
    
    
    I think many men fear it.  Not to the extent that they let it paralyze
    them, but it may cross their mind occaisionally, it does mine.  I have 
    been a chaperone on a few field trips with my daughters class
    (kindergarten) and I have seen some of the kids outside of the school 
    envirenment.  Some (3) of the kids have come up and given me a hug when
    they have seen me.  I was a bit concerned that someone (their parents)
    may get the wrong idea (one father was glaring at me with one of the
    children).  I don't blame the parents, it is a scary world out there and 
    it is hard to trust people. 
    
    
    
    Mike

Fred, nobody is arguing in support of 'letting false accusations go'.
When I think about the issue of rape, however, that is the least of
the real problems.  Men continuing to harp about such a small problem
look a lot more concerned with protecting the status quo, which lets
off most rapists and thereby supports the crime, than they look like
it matters to them that the crime of rape gets stopped.

> Would you support the same penalty for _proven_ false accusation as 
> for _proven_ rape?  IMHO that is one thing that could be done that 
> would benefit _both_ sides.

You talk about pushing the same penalties for false accusations as for
rape.  Do you know how few rape vistims come forward even now (far less
than 50%; some statistics suggest fewer than 10%)?  And when one does
come forward, how seldom the case even gets investigated (many are simply
deemed 'unfounded' and ignored.)  And when one gets investigated how few
result in trial?  And when one comes to trial how few result in convictions?
This system already screens out huge percentages of real victims against
your fear of false accusations.  I think its way too overbalanced in the
attempt to guard against your fear already.  You have very, very little to
worry about.

If you know all of those things, AND you want to add more punishment for 
false accusers, then you don't understand how the system currently denies 
justice to the victims of rape.  You think your proposal would only be applied 
to people filing false reports?  Fear of not being believed and of being 
prosecuted for it would keep even more real rape victims away.  Your proposal 
would benefit only the rapists by further discouraging real victims from making
any report at all.

Filing a false police report is already a crime.  Leave it at that.

In dealing with the crime of rape, a systemic change that protects more men
than women is obviously not a current requirement to improve the system.

DougO

    re .41

>Fred, nobody is arguing in support of 'letting false accusations go'.
>When I think about the issue of rape, however, that is the least of
>the real problems.  Men continuing to harp about such a small problem

    Maybe in your eyes, Doug, but in the eyes of the Court and the
    Constitution, false accusation and the protection of the 
    innocent are a _BIG_ concern.  That is not likely to change in
    spite of all the rantings.  You are either accidentally or deliberately
    just not getting it.  I've explained it several times now.  I don't
    know how many permutations I can come up with.

    So, if you want to talk about what _can_ be done about rape, 
    then lets talk.  If you want to just regurgitate another round
    of what *&^%'s men are, you'll find more sympathy in another
    file.

    fred();

Fred, Fred, Fred.  I have no quibble with your sacrosanct 'protection
of the innocent'; but nobody can pretend that the current system, which
already protects so many of the guilty, needs even further laws which
will deter real victims from coming forward.  Except you.  You are already
more than reasonably protected against false accusations by a police system
that tries and convicts so very, very few of the real rapists.  Repeating
your tunnel view of it isn't necessary.

But as I mused in my first note, if things were different, then maybe more
men would be interested in getting the social problem which manifests itself
as men_who_rape, solved.

DougO

    re .43

    The key phrase is:

>But as I mused in my first note, if things were different, then maybe more
>men would be interested in getting the social problem which manifests itself
>as men_who_rape, solved.

    Bottom line is things are not different.  Therefore the only point in
    the rest of it that I can see is just another male-bashing exercise.
    I'm saying that doing something about false accusation would help
    with the problem with the way rape victims are treated today.  You
    come back the generic "something needs to be done about rape" with
    no suggestion as to what can be done, then foo-foo false accusation
    as a problem.  Bottom line is Doug, the fear of false accusation
    is a big concern to the very men you ask  to jump upon your bandwagon 
    to fix the problems you are concerned about.  Then you foo-foo their 
    concerns.  The old, "lets fix my problems but forget about yours".

    Your statements about false accusation being "the least of the
    problems" are probably not going to gain you many disciples from
    the male community.  Yes, a good chunk of men _are_ more concerned
    about being falsely accused than they are about being raped.  
    That's just a fact of life.  I'd guess that most women are more
    concerned about being raped than they are about being falsely accused 
    of some sexual crime.  Also a fact of life.  To try to set up some
    speculative condition in order to bash one or the other is not
    going to help either very much.

    fred();

You misunderstand.  I don't see it as an either-or situation, where
people have to take sides and argue about one position or another;
thus I'm not advocating any particular half-baked proposal.  What you
have proven to me is that your fears about false accusation are very
personal, and they seem also to me to be very selfish.  Not that there's
anything wrong with selfish, per se, but lets not pretend it even begins
to address the problems caused by men_who_rape.  Adding another hurdle
to the already huge obstacles faced by rape victims is a bad idea.  Your
proposal would be just such a hurdle.

This is not bashing men.  This is not foo-fooing your concerns.  This is
acknowledging them and giving them their proper due in the bigger picture
that I am concerned about, namely, our society is extremely sick and a
major symptom of that is signalled by our inability to stop rape and other
violent crimes.  You would make it even harder; I know you don't think so,
you think adding more punishments to the rare case of false accusations
would make men feel safer and more secure about supporting real rape victims.

Of course, you yourself don't admit that our entire judicial apparatus, in
denying investigations, in refusing to bring to trial, and in failing to
convict, already protects so well against prosecution under false accusations
that even most of the guilty have no worries.  All of this protection of the
innocent doesn't still your fears.  Why should I beleive you that after you 
add one more hurdle you and other men will suddenly magically feel like all
the cases of false accusations can now finally be laid to rest and you'll
now support rape victims?  It is damned near impossible now to prosecute a
rape case and you still fear false accusations!  And after you add another 
hurdle, threatening criminal prosecution to rape victims who you claim will
offer all of these false accusations, nothing would change- you wouldn't
really feel any safer from that miniscule threat.

I offered you a chance to convince me otherwise.  But you're right; things
aren't different; men of your mindset are so fearful of the false accusation
that they'd make it even harder to reverse the trend of increasing violence
and fear impacting directly upon thousands of women every day.  Thanks for
nothing, Fred; I knew things weren't different.

DougO

.22> Which gives you no recourse if the person doing the slander has
.22> no assets. It might as well be legal for the unwealthy to slander
.22> and libel.
    
    Like Rocky said in Rocky five :
    
	    "Sue me?  Sue me for WHAT?"

.33> How common is the false accusation of rape?  Y'all are talking as if it
.33> were an everyday occurence.
    
    I personally know a woman who filed false rape charges and even went so
    far as to pick out a mug shot.
    
    It was all a publicity stunt to win sympathy.  She dropped the charges
    when she found out her father had put a contract out on the guy.  She
    only wanted him to be pulled in and questioned and maybe charged, not
    whacked.
    
    And I know another woman who simply spread false accusations of
    attempted rape after she flew 2,000 miles to be with the guy for the
    weekend, for the sole purpose of having sex.  They had lots of it,
    but she later felt cheapened and sought revenge.
    
    Keep blowing that "this doesn't happen everyday" smoke ...

    re doug0
>You misunderstand.  

    I don't think I'm misunderstanding your agenda here.

    >I don't see it as an either-or situation, where
>people have to take sides and argue about one position or another;
>thus I'm not advocating any particular half-baked proposal.  

    No, Just trying to rat-hole one discussion by bringing up another.

    >What you
>have proven to me is that your fears about false accusation are very
>personal, and they seem also to me to be very selfish.  Not that there's
>anything wrong with selfish, per se, but lets not pretend it even begins
>to address the problems caused by men_who_rape.  

    And what you have proven to me is that if any man is not worried about
    false accusation, maybe they should be.  You provide an excellent
    example of just how far the attitude has gone.

    >Adding another hurdle
>to the already huge obstacles faced by rape victims is a bad idea.  Your
>proposal would be just such a hurdle.

    Most of those hurdles are placed there to protect the innocent.  The
    more innocent who are falsely are wrongly charged, the more people
    suspect the real victim.  

>Of course, you yourself don't admit that our entire judicial apparatus, in
>denying investigations, in refusing to bring to trial, and in failing to
>convict, already protects so well against prosecution under false accusations
>that even most of the guilty have no worries.  

    I agree that our judicial system is %$#@'ed-up.  Most of it brought
    on by the liberal Supreme Court and the rules they established for
    gathering and presentation of evidence.  Fixing the judicial system 
    will largely start with a conservative Supreme Court.  Your male-bashing 
    will not likely help much.

    >All of this protection of the
>innocent doesn't still your fears. 

    Even if found innocent, a man can/will still be ruined financially
    and in reputation.

> Why should I believe you that after you 
>add one more hurdle you and other men will suddenly magically feel like all
>the cases of false accusations can now finally be laid to rest and you'll
>now support rape victims?  It is damned near impossible now to prosecute a

>I offered you a chance to convince me otherwise.  But you're right; things

    Why should I worry about convincing you.  At this point you're playing
    the old "unless you can prove your point to _my_ satisfaction, then
    you're wrong", and I don't see much need fur further debate with you
    on this point as it is, in you're case at least a no-win situation.

    fred();

    DougO-
    
    you keep telling fred he should be supporting rape victims and
    not worry about the idea of being falsley accused of a crime.
    Yet, you do not tell him HOW to do this (except for teling him
    not to worry about his fears).  Exactly what do you suggest men
    need to do to help support real victims so that they feel less
    leary of being the recipient of a false charge?
    
    I'm curious, too, how you would react should someone falsly accuse
    YOU of such a crime?  You may think it could never happen, but it
    could.  How would you react then?  Even if it never made it to 
    court, do you not agree that the little notice in the local paper,
    your friends, neighbors and co-workers hearing this information is
    very damaging to the person who is thusly accused?  That even if the
    case doesn't go to court, he will always wander around under a cloud
    of suspicion?

    re .49, Christine, I understand what you're saying, but I honestly can't
    imagine anyone who knows DougO, at all, believing something like that
    about him.  I've only met Doug a few times, yet I would never believe it
    if somebody told me he had raped somebody.  So, I don't think he'd have
    to worry about what his friends and acquaintances would think if
    someone falsely accused him.  (I suppose there's still the fear of what
    strangers might think, though.)
    
    Lorna
    

    thanks Lorna, I don't know him myself, but it was a random thot.

    What I'm saying is that you can worry about all sorts of far-out things
    happening, but what's the point?  You can worry that "blue ice" (potty
    eject) from a jet will hit the roof of your house and land on your new
    living room carpet.  :-) Etc.
    
    What bugs me about this discussion is that it implies the fear of a
    false accusation is somehow on the same footing as a woman's fear of
    rape.  Which it isn't.  For one thing, a false accusation is
    statistically almost insignificant, perhaps unless you are a celebrity,
    whereas the fear of rape is a daily, real issue for women, and a very
    large percent of women have been raped at least once in their lives.
    
    I feel that the legal system already provides very good protection for
    men falsely accused of rape, but it has significant flaws for rape
    victims.  
    
    Sure, life ain't a bowl of cherries.  If you WERE to get falsely
    accused, it would be a real mess, and very unfair.  That's true.  I'm
    just saying that the risks are nowhere equivalent to the risks of women
    getting raped.  And I don't like to see the risks and hazards of rape
    minimized in any way.
    
    Laura

    since most males don't have the same fear of rape as women do,
    perhaps from their perspective it isn't so trivial.  No one here
    is saying that rape is trivial nor is a woman's fear of it, but
    many are saying that a man's fear of false accusation is trivial.
    They may not be equivalent things in a woman's view, but perhaps
    it is different for a man...

    re .54, well, to my mind they are different types of fear.
    
    To me, fear of rape, is primarily a fear of being killed or physically
    injured, and since I'm a very small person, it's pretty scary.
    
    But, fear of being accused of rape, would seem to me to be a fear of
    being thrown in jail, fined, losing my reputation, disrrupting my life,
    and going through a lot of hassle.  Not to be taken lightly, by any
    means, but still not on a par with being brutally murdered, or beaten.
    
    Lorna
    

    >You can worry that "blue ice" (potty eject) from a jet will hit the
    >roof of your house and land on your new living room carpet.
    
    Lots of people are afraid of icy BM strikes...

    Lorna, I do agree that they are two different types of fears
    and the results of both differ.  I guess I'm trying to say that
    barring out and out murder for a man, that in general men don't
    experience the same fear of rape as does a woman, so perspectivally
    speaking, there isn't much in a man's experience that will compare
    to this fear of rape, but it doesn't minimize the fears they have
    of false accusation in today's world

    
    false accusation can destroy a man just as surely as
    rape can destry a womans.
    
    the difference is that society regards men as expendable 
    and their lifes as having no particular significance.
    

>   Exactly what do you suggest men need to do to help support real victims 
>   so that they feel less leary of being the recipient of a false charge?

Well, holding off making on proposals that would be used against real victims 
of rape in order to provide yet another institutionalized layer of protection
against false accusation would be a start.  Fred would rather the additional
layer to cover his own fears, and refuses to see how it would be used against 
rape victims.  He overtly makes the policy trade-off to increase his comfort
level and against the needs of real victims.  Since real victims are already
denied justice in the vast majority of cases, and since the system already has
about four layers to protect him, I think its an awful tradeoff.  Fred doesn't.

Beyond that, I want men to acknowledge and work to change those elements of
our society that contribute to our rape culture.  Every instance of sexual
harassment, every incidence of lack of respect, every off-color joke which
targets women, every institution that exists to exploit women, every single
cultural practice that demeans women or provides unfair privilege to men
should be challenged; because far too many men see all of their privileges
and all of their advantages as birthrights and unconciously or even overtly
start to think that women are there to be used, theirs for the taking.  I
think men need to be taught how to responsibly use their in-most-cases far
greater physical strength.   Because in the worst cases, those few men who 
rape are taking advantage of all of us who take our privileges as men in less
objectionable ways; they're abusing their privileges!  This culture has been
built to exalt men and women who are raped or who fear rape are paying the
price.  I expect men to acknowledge all of this and work to change it.  Thats
what I expect men to do; even though it means giving up their easier-to-get
lines of credit, their easier-to-prove fitness for promotion, their easier-
to-earn salary increases, and all of the other subtle cultural cues that give
men an advantage over women.  Those cues get taken by rotters as justification
for the abuse and rape of countless women.  The cues must be changed.

>    false accusation can destroy a man just as surely as
>    rape can destry a womans.
>    
>    the difference is that society regards men as expendable 
>    and their lifes as having no particular significance.
    
I haven't been arguing against the first case though; I've been making a 
slightly different, and to my mind, irrefutable case:

false accusations affect not one percent as many men as rape affects women.

[Some] men fear something that happens way, way, less.  Fine; let some men
be afraid.  But the system already adequately protects the unjustly accused,
so well that it fails to protect against the real criminals.

My take on Robert's second statement is far less accomodating; men have now
and have always had far more power, respect, and legal, institutionalized 
protection in every country and for all of recorded history than women ever
have had.  Society regards men as, and expects men to be, powerful.

DougO

    Re: .59
    
    Doug, you mentioned "the real victims" several times.  Are you
    suggesting that men falsely accused of rape are "fake victims"?
    
    I don't think anyone here would disagree that rape is a far more
    frequent occurrence than false accusation.  But I interpret what
    you're saying as belittling men's fears of something which DOES 
    happen and their fears that an environment which makes it easier
    to obtain rape convictions makes it too easy for an innocent man
    to be punished.
    
    I consider rape a hideous and brutal crime, and I'd like to see
    it wiped out.  But I shudder at the thought that doing so means,
    to many, a presumption of guilt on men; guilt of a crime which
    often has no conclusive physical evidence to support the allegation,
    just someone's claim (which is often long after the fact).
    
    I don't have any easy answers.  But I don't think it's right to
    increase the probability of convicting an innocent man in the name
    of increasing convictions of the guilty.  And I don't think it's
    right to tell men that their fears are not important or real.
    
    					Steve

    Re: .50
    
    Lorna, why wouldn't you believe it if someone told you that Doug
    had raped someone?  What makes him so special?  (I have met Doug
    a number of times.)  You know me, what if someone told you I
    had raped someone?  Would you believe that?  All it takes is a
    glance at a newspaper to see that many crimes are committed by
    people whose friends and family "would never dream that they'd
    do such a thing."  All men are potential rapists, right?
    
    			Steve

>    Doug, you mentioned "the real victims" several times.  Are you
>    suggesting that men falsely accused of rape are "fake victims"?

no.  I was using that merely to distinguish the far more numerous real
victims of rape from the miniscule numbers of those who make false claims.

>   But I don't think it's right to increase the probability of convicting 
>   an innocent man in the name of increasing convictions of the guilty.  

Hold it.  While Fred proposed the converse of this (increasing the probability
of dissuading rape victims from coming forward, though not in those words) I
did NOT propose anything like what you're saying.  I gave a lengthy paragraph 
about changing society and did NOT say anything like what you're talking about.

>   And I don't think it's right to tell men that their fears are not 
>   important or real.

I didn't do that either.  I merely compared the size of the population
who've had that fear come true against those who've had fears of rape come
true.  When the problems are of equal magnitude I'll give fears of them 
equal time.  But I did NOT deny the fear.

I would far rather you discuss something I did say than castigate me for 
something quite removed from it, in both these latter two cases.

DougO

    re .61, what makes Doug so special?  Well, I don't want to embarrass
    Doug, but funny you should ask.  :-)
    
    Doug has taken a lot of time to understand how things are for women. 
    Doug is able to articulately refute Bob Holt's claims that society
    considers men more expendible than women, in a way that satisfies me,
    and I think that's special.
    
    Steve, while I think you seem like a nice person, and I would be
    extremely surprised to find out that you had committed *any* crime,
    Doug has really made a commitment to feminism, that I believe is
    sincere, and because of this I feel quite confident that he would never
    rape anybody.  How's that for an answer?
    
    Lorna
    

    re .61, also, I, personally, have never been comfortable with the term
    "all men are potential rapists."  In a sense, maybe, because all, or
    most men, have the physical ability to rape, but I know that most men
    would never rape anyone, and so the phrase is offensive.  One might as
    well say "all humans are potential murderers."  I suspose, in a way, we
    all are, but most of us would never kill anyone else, unless force to
    in war or self-defense.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    RE: .63  I cannot believe this.  90% (at least) of the American men
    detest rape, you are painting with an awfully wide brush there.
    
    
    Mike

    re .65, huh?  what are you talking about?  How am I painting with wide
    brush?  I don't know what you are referring to?  Where did I ever make
    any statement with regard to how many American men detest rape?  I have
    no idea what the percentages are!  Geesh!
    
    All I was saying originally, in reply to Christine's note,where she
    asked Doug how he would feel if he was accused of rape, because his
    friends might turn against him or whatever, was that I didn't think any
    of his friends would believe he would do it, anyway.  The fact that I
    said I wouldn't believe Doug would rape anybody is certainly in no way
    meant to be a reflection on what I think, or don't think, any of the
    rest of the men in America would or wouldn't do!!!!
    
    Mike W., I don't even know how your .65, refers to anything I wrote in
    .63.  
    
    Obviously, we are not communicating, and Doug is probably embarrassed
    by what I said anyway.  He certainly doesn't need me to stick up for
    him.  He can do that well enough by himself.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .62

>Hold it.  While Fred proposed the converse of this (increasing the probability
>of dissuading rape victims from coming forward, though not in those words) I
>did NOT propose anything like what you're saying.  I gave a lengthy paragraph 
>about changing society and did NOT say anything like what you're talking about.

    Now you're putting words in my mouth Doug0.  I said nothing about
    dissuading rape victims from coming forward.  I said that those who
    commit false accusation should be punished.  There are already laws
    against perjury, but they are rarely enforced (unless you are a 
    Republican working in the White House ;^) ).  There are already laws
    against false accusation, but even when it has been shown that
    the offense has been blatant, they have rarely been enforced.  

    I _did_ say that, IMHO, enforcing the perjury and false accusation laws
    would _help_ the real victims because it _would_ make them less
    subjected to suspicion if there is less false accusation.  We have
    the same goal, in a way, to reduce the amount of rape and make it
    more possible for the real victims to get justice.  However you
    seem to accuse me of doing just the opposite.

>I would far rather you discuss something I did say than castigate me for 
>something quite removed from it, in both these latter two cases.

    Look first to your own problems.

>no.  I was using that merely to distinguish the far more numerous real
>victims of rape from the miniscule numbers of those who make false claims.

    Why should the one make the other not a problem?  In order to 
    change the fact that the scales of justice  are heavily weighted
    in favor of protecting the innocent in our society you will have to 
    change the Supreme Court and probably the Constitution.

    I disagree that the number of false accusations is miniscule?
    To use an old noting tactic, where are your statistics?  Or do
    you think that every man who is found innocent of rape charges
    is just benefiting from the "male dominated judicial system".

    You seems to me also to  be saying that the false rape victims should
    not be challenged to make it easier for "real" rape victims.  Again you
    provide a good example of why, if men are not already concerned about
    false accusation, then maybe they should be.

    What you are asking for is ____already____ the case.  A woman has
    little or nothing to fear from false accusation.  Has it helped?

    fred();

    
    
    Lorna, 
    
    
    It just came across to me that you thought men don't understand how a 
    woman would feel if she were raped (you are correct, but rape angers me
    very very much), but I think that men would be very sympathetic.  You
    dismiss as being silly, men worrying about being accused of rape or
    child abuse (sexual or physical).  It is a concern for men because of
    all the accusations made.  Psychiatrists are digging into peoples past
    and finding out (supposedly) that they were sexually abused by their
    parents (even though the adult doesn't remember it before the therapy).
    Many of the parents deny that sexual abuse happened.  Did it happen? 
    Did it not?  I don't know.  I hope someone finds the solution someday.
    
    
    
    Mike

    re .68, Mike, I do *not* dismiss as silly men being accused of rape or
    child abuse, and, frankly, I don't really know why or how you think
    that from anything I've ever written. But, it's not true.  I don't.
    
    And, believe it or not, I also find it somewhat scary that some people
    are being hypnotized or whatever, and then claiming that they suddenly
    remember having been abused when they were small children.  I know I
    wouldn't want somebody accusing me of anything like that.
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Perhaps it was from your .52.
    
    
    Mike

>Now you're putting words in my mouth Doug0.

Tell me, Fred, what does the phrase "though not in those words", which
I quite explicitly attached, mean?  It means you used other words, and 
it implies that the foregoing was my interpretation of what you said, 
an analysis you have repeatedly failed to comprehend.  I know you don't 
think your proposal would have the effect of dissuading rape victims 
from coming forward.  But I do.  And I feel free to use that analysis 
(see .41 for the details) in further discussions.

>    I _did_ say that, IMHO, enforcing the perjury and false accusation laws
>    would _help_ the real victims because it _would_ make them less
>    subjected to suspicion if there is less false accusation.   We have
>    the same goal, in a way, to reduce the amount of rape and make it
>    more possible for the real victims to get justice.  However you
>    seem to accuse me of doing just the opposite.

No- your proposal was far more vicious, in .39:

>    A question to you.  Would you support the same penalty for _proven_
>    false accusation as for _proven_ rape? 

I have no problem with what you claim are your goals, Fred, but what you 
proposed is worse for victims of rape than even the status quo is now;
and you proposed far more than merely enforcing the existing laws.

>    Why should the one make the other not a problem?  In order to 
>    change the fact that the scales of justice  are heavily weighted
>    in favor of protecting the innocent in our society you will have to 
>    change the Supreme Court and probably the Constitution.

Now, I don't get this at all.  Both you and Steve are reacting as if I'd
proposed some draconian change in the judicial system to make prosecutions
of rapists easier.  I have made no such proposal; YOU made one in the other
direction, which I opposed, but I haven't said word one about changing the
rules by which the police operate, or the courts.  So quit accusing me of
doing that, it gets tiresome.

Back in .42, you issued an invitation:

>    So, if you want to talk about what _can_ be done about rape, 
>    then lets talk.

Christine issued it again in .49:

> Exactly what do you suggest men need to do to help support real victims so 
> that they feel less leary of being the recipient of a false charge?

I responded in my first two paragraphs of .59, especially the second.
Please feel free to respond to that.

DougO

    re .70, Mike, .52, was written by Laura Steinhardt.
    
    Lorna St.Hilaire
    
    (similar names, but different people!)
    

    
    
    Sorry Lorna, mea culpa.
    
    
    
    Mike

    re .71

    You continue the "fred wants to make it harder for women to convict
    men of rape" mantra.  I ask you again, how has the current situation
    in which women have little or not accountability for false accusation
    helped?  IMHO the situation has hurt by making men and the judicial
    system even more defensive and making them or suspicious in questioning
    the real victim.

    You keep up the "there are enough protections already" while you ignore
    the replies of many who say the even if the judicial system does not
    convict, there will be widespread and irreparable damage done to
    the victim of false accusation.

>I responded in my first two paragraphs of .59, especially the second.
>Please feel free to respond to that.

    I see little in your .59 that is not _yet another_ regurgitation of the
    feminist mantra.  Which appears to be an attempt to try to turn
    attention away from the problem of false accusation if not to out and
    out justify false accusation.  I see little in the way of concrete
    proposals.  Again you provide us with a good example of why, if men are
    not already worried about false accusation, maybe they should be.

    fred();

Fred, I just demonstrated that you didn't even remember your own
proposal from .39 when you wrote .67.  If you can't remember stuff
that you wrote, I can guarantee you aren't remembering or describing
what I wrote, either.  So yes, I'll correct your errors when you get
me wrong.

With regard to proposals to solve the problems, well, I'll address
the ones I want to address (rape) while you can worry all you want
about something that happens to lots fewer people (false accusations).
I personally think that there are so many protections built in to the
system that victims of false accusations are already very well protected
from the dangers of false arrest or imprisonment.  You want their fair
reputations to be protected, too?  Sorry, no guarantees on that; perhaps
the best defense you could possibly take, Fred, is to become a radical
feminist like me such that nobody who knows you would believe such an
accusation for a minute (I'm only half kidding (and thanks, Lorna.)) 
I find the irony delicious.  It would be a heckuva step for you to
take, though, Fred, but I tell you, the peace of mind is worth it.
I haven't worried about being falsely accused of rape for years ;-). 

Beyond that, when I start seeing one tenth as many men with reputations 
damaged by false or even only unproven accusations, as there are women 
I see with far more than reputations damaged by rape...then I'll pay it 
commensurate time and effort.  Until then, hey, you have your worries, 
I have mine.  And my peace of mind.

DougO

    
    re .76
    
>Sorry, no guarantees on that; perhaps
>the best defense you could possibly take, Fred, is to become a radical
>feminist like me such that nobody who knows you would believe such an
>accusation for a minute (I'm only half kidding (and thanks, Lorna.)) 
>I find the irony delicious.  It would be a heckuva step for you to
>take, though, Fred, but I tell you, the peace of mind is worth it.
    
    I'll pass.
    
>I haven't worried about being falsely accused of rape for years ;-). 
    
    No. Thanks anyway.
    
    fred();

.67> Now you're putting words in my mouth Doug0.  I said nothing about
.67> dissuading rape victims from coming forward.  I said that those who
    
    Fred, remember who you're dealing with ...
    
    On the one hand, in WN, Douglass suggests the death penalty for men 
    convicted of rape, on the other hand, he wants men to stop proposing
    changes that will make rape convictions harder to get.
    
    Sounds like a whole lot of internalized misandry, Douglass.

>    On the one hand, in WN, Douglass suggests the death penalty for men 
>    convicted of rape, on the other hand, he wants men to stop proposing
>    changes that will make rape convictions harder to get.
    
How conveniently you exclude the middle, Michael; that my real goal
is to rid the planet of men-who-rape.

DougO

    re .78

    Mike,

    As the saying goes, "If you think they're out to get you, it may
    _not_ be paranoia".
    
    fred();

>non-rapists have nothing to fear from me

 Sounds to me like falsely accused rapists might have cause for concern...

Mark, if you want to pick nits, bother the guys with huge holes in
their arguments and blinders on, not me.

DougO

.81> As the saying goes, "If you think they're out to get you, it may
.81> _not_ be paranoia".
    
    Sad, but true.
    
    Didya notice that Douglass didn't even try to dispute .78?  Ho HO!

.82>Sounds to me like falsely accused rapists might have cause for concern...
    
    C'mon, Mark, don't get carried away, we all know that alleged rape
    victims never lie.
    
    Like Douglass sez, only rapists have cause to worry.

    
    And men never get falsely accused of child molestation in custody
    battles either Z.  You know that.
    
    
    Mike

>    Didya notice that Douglass didn't even try to dispute .78?  Ho HO!

Your illogic was unmasked sufficiently in .80 (Ho HO, yourself.)  Beyond 
that, calumny needn't be dignified with an answer.  Your assertion of 
misandry in .78 is a slander and frankly I'm surprised Steve let you leave 
it in.  Perhaps I should call it to his attention; one more spanking needed 
for the netpest.

DougO

    I do not consider .78 outside the bounds of normal interchange, though
    I am not thrilled at the level to which this mutual sniping is
    descending.  Lighten up, folks.
    
    					Steve

    I really don't see anything wrong with Fred's idea that making
    one pay penalties for knowingly falsely accusing someone of either
    crime (rape / child molestation).  However, it does open up another
    can of worms.  Such a case goes to trial and the verdict is not
    guilty...one cannot automatically assume that the accuser lied 
    because the case was lost any more than an acquitted man should
    have to pay the price anyway...does this make sense?  How do we
    distinguish or prove a false accusation versus an unproven one?

Re: .89

As with any other similar charge (libel and slander), a trial would be needed
to show intent to deceive.  As you say, a not-guilty finding does not
at all imply that the alleged victim was lying.

				Steve

    There is a very interesting concept of trial law in the book _The
    Dosadi Experiment_ by Frank Herbert.  One of the peoples has a court
    system in which *everybody* in the courtroom is under the law - even
    the judges, advocates, witnesses, and spectators can be found guilty of
    crime in any case.  Very few cases are tried in the Courtarena, where
    the penalty is determined by the winning advocate and can include death
    at that advocate's hands.
    
    (I would think that a similar system, not necessarily unto death, might
    slow down false accusation a bunch - if an accusation is found to be
    false, make the accuser subject to the same penalty that the defendant
    could have suffered.)
    
    These people have another interesting concept - you cannot create new
    law without destroying old law.  The destruction of an old law can be
    by repeal or by proof that the law itself is invalid or illegal.  They
    have very few laws.
    
    Their legal system is quick and effective because there's not much room
    or incentive for legal wrangling.

.86> And men never get falsely accused of child molestation in custody
.86> battles either Z.  You know that.
    
    Ooh, I forgot about them ... let's give them the electric chair too!
    
    Right DuggO?

    	I have never (as far as I know) known anyone who has been raped or
    been a rapist, but about 20 years ago a near neighbour of mine was
    falsely accused of rape (the two girls involved later said they cooked
    the story up as a joke to see what would happen).
    
    	Before then I always used to pick up female hitch hikers, thinking
    that they were safer with me than if left to J. Random following me.
    Since then I have always left the women to J. Random, though I still
    very occasionaly give lifts to men.

    re .93
    
>    	Before then I always used to pick up female hitch hikers, thinking
>    that they were safer with me than if left to J. Random following me.
>    Since then I have always left the women to J. Random, though I still
>    very occasionaly give lifts to men.
    
    Now that you mention it, this happened to me just last week.  There
    was a female hitch-hicker on the road.  I started to stop, then 
    thought....what if....naaaa.
    
    fred();

    I gave a woman a ride last week.
    
    She was walking the same direction as I was driving, so I pulled up and
    asked her if she needed a ride.  Coincidentally, it was 7am and she was
    dressed as if going to work.
    
    No problems at all.  I just wish I could've given her a ride more than
    halfway to her place, because she still had about a mile of walking
    ahead of her, and it was muggy.
    
    I'd probably give a ride to a man under the same circumstances.

    That's where our paths diverged.
    
    99% of the guys out there woulda driven all the way to work.  She'll
    remember me for only taking her halfway.  ;')

    
>>	She'll remember me for only taking her halfway.  ;')

	I don't know, Mikey.  There's a good chance that most of the
	men she's known have only taken her halfway.  *^)

    The question was asked a while back, "What have you done to avoid
    rape"?

    My answer is, I try to stay out of Prison, where homosexual rape
    is not only commonplace but winked at by authorities, if not
    out and out considered part of "what they deserve".
    Now, put women in a place where rape is more or less condoned and....

    fred();

    Looks like the publicity over Michael Jackson is heating up.  The 
    media vultures just can't resist although investigations have shown
    so far that no evidence of any kind of abuse exists.  I'm no 
    Michael Jackson fan, but I hate seeing someones career ruined over
    nothing more than an accusation.

    fred();

    I have read some of the news accounts, and his admitted sleeping with
    the kids has been brought up as inappropriate at best.
    
    When one is in a publicly visable position as he is... all it takes is
    accusations (true or not) to change the image people have of one.
    
    Whether he is guility or not, I suspect his image will never be the
    same again.
    
    
    

    re .102, I think he's probably just out of touch with reality, and out
    of touch with what other people, or most people, would consider to be
    appropriate or normal behavior.  It's certainly no excuse for anything,
    but I doubt, after the life he's led, that he knows what normal people
    consider appropriate.
    
    Lorna