This is a continuation of my series:

• Part One
• Part Two

All Women Lie About Rape - Part Three

By now, most of you probably see where I’m going with this series. At the very least, you understand that my title is facetious, and that I understand rape is a real crime, and there are real victims. For those who had a knee-jerk reaction during the first installments, I suggest you take a moment to consider why you had such a reaction, and calibrate future reactions accordingly.

When determining whether something requires a second look, I ask myself a few questions.

The first question, which we already answered, was: does it give me a gut feeling something is wrong. You can perform the quick mental logic that we did in our second part of this saga to determine that the statistics on rape and our observations do not match.

Now, some of you very kindly pointed out that my logic was faulty, and you wouldn’t be wrong. There are a number of reasons for these numbers. For instance, a small number of rapists may account for disproportionate amounts of rape. The changing definition of rape or assault may account for larger numbers than what one might consider. Perhaps there’s a motivation behind false accusations that benefit women. Or perhaps the number of accusations is accurate for the crime, and it is simply the statistics that are incorrect. At the very least, putting rape and assault stats together to equal roughly half of women is disingenuous. Or is it? (We’ll touch on this in a bit)

In the first installment of this series I put a lot of emphasis on the fact that no worldview is going to be correct. There will be some that are more correct than others, and there will be some that are entirely wrong but they might still be effective at bringing you closer to your goals.

My point in this thought experiment is that the exercise in the first two installments can be done completely in one’s head with no research and very little amount of thought. It’s not a replacement for research or knowledge, but rather a starting point for thinking outside of the box.

So how do you determine if you need to think outside the box?

Disagreement

First: Am I allowed to question this?

For example, watching a movie with friends, I fear very little in starting a lively debate on the merits of the movie. Maybe my friends like the movie and I think it’s awful. There’s little risk in asking, to see if perhaps there’s a reason for the discord. Certainly there will be little to no backlash for making the claim that it is a bad movie, even if it is objectively not.

In the case of rape, however, it’s a very hot button topic. Politicians and celebrities are hung out to dry the minute they might suggest an accusation is false. All rape stories must be believed is our culture’s refrain. Even when you suspect there is strong evidence against an allegation being true, simply suggesting it can ruin your life and career.

This is evidenced most commonly by our culture’s reporting of rapes. Take the Rolling Stone article about the rape on the UVA campus. They reported on it with no proof but the word of a girl, and it turned out to be a hoax. It was quickly retracted by Rolling Stone, and then followed-up by Huffington Post with “Rolling Stone Got Jackie’s Story Wrong, But That Doesn’t Make It A Hoax,” pleading with us to take a lesson from the story because it sounded true enough despite there being nothing true about it.

There are other similar topics that cannot be questioned. Of course, that doesn’t mean they’re inherently false. But it does mean there’s a pressure keeping the status quo that isn’t directly related to facts. Consider whether you’re allowed to have a public discussion on these topics and take the position of devil’s advocate without personal sacrifice:

• Rape

• The existence of god in the context of a religious circle

• Global Warming

• Evolution

• Racism

• Islam

All of these topics have strong emotional components to them, and evoke very real visceral reactions in those who hear them. Questioning them will be met with resistance regardless of logic or reason.

Red Flag Number One: there’s a pressure keeping the status quo that isn’t directly related to facts.

Motivation

The next step is to follow the money. Is there a potential motivation or beneficiary of this fact or belief being false?

If I own a vitamin company, it’s in my best interest to convince everybody that they need vitamins. This is not a hugely contested point, though there is a plethora of conflicting information about some of the lesser known vitamins. I would say there’s significant reason to believe at least some information is intentionally misinformation for the supplement industry, though luckily, there doesn’t seem to be a negative stigma attached to questioning it.

If I am a woman, do I benefit from a direct false accusation of sexual assault? Perhaps so. The largest risk I can identify is that a false accusation could be discovered. Most would consider this risk to be prohibitive. But the legal risk for women to make such an accusation is actually very low, as they’re not likely to be charged with anything for doing so. The social risk may be higher, but even then, there’s a push in our culture to assume that they weren’t lying. Rather, we must assume that the system failed them.

What’s the benefit, though?

Victim status increases an individual or group’s access to proxy power.

I’m going to quote another article here on power mechanisms:

Proxy power is the ability to negotiate the use of another person's power. A woman uses her looks (social value) to get a man to move furniture (Direct power). A child uses his mother's love (Social value) to request food. A man uses his rank (social value) to command troops.

Direct power is the ability to enact one's will without aid. Direct power can be physical or financial or otherwise. The key is that no permission is needed to wield this power, nor is another person's complicity required for it to take effect. It is the individual acting on their environment.

The apparent weakness of our other halves, our ying to our yang, has been artificially increased and bastardized. This is best illustrated through feminism.

Feminists boast high direct power while in the same breath looking to co-opt men for the use of proxy power. The disconnect between their claims and their reality makes them repugnant. Remember, normally proxy power is a transaction, trading social value for use of power. A woman who believes she has direct power doesn't engage in that transaction. She gives up little or no social value for the use of a man's power. She is a leach. The man is left feeling duped when he hands over use of his power for nothing in return.

Most leaches will suck their host dry if left for too long. This is where the victim status comes into play. Feminism created the victim status to generate extra social value for women. Men have this sort of instinctual urge to protect weak things. When a woman claims victimhood, something in our brains kicks into high gear and wants to lend them the use of our direct power to fix the issue. Feminism is the process of making women strong through fostering greater weakness.

Instead of trading affection or sex for proxy power, now women can claim to deserve that access by default. She lives in a constant state of disaster that plays on a man's desire to lend power. It may seem baffling to him that no amount of power he lends seems to fix the endless string of calamity that is her life. What he's missing is that drama is her source of power. Discord is the dynamic that powers the weak. All weak people revel in their victimhood, it is the foundation of their identity.

Now, this access to proxy power through victimhood doesn’t need one to become a direct victim. While we’re sure there are some false accusations out there, the statistic lends cover to all women everywhere. The fact that almost every woman can conjure a rape/assault story on command is because they do want to ensure they can both give credibility to the statistic, but also withdraw their own amount of proxy power from it. No false accusation need take place for this transaction.

Making a claim that they are indeed directly affected by the statistic ensures their piece of the power pie is reserved; the repetition of these stories is a broadcast for social status.

There is no doubt that the definition of assault and rape has changed over the last few decades, broadening to include much more than most assume. Marital rape created to remove women’s responsibility in a relationship, but the man’s job to provide was left unmodified. It created a victimhood narrative that women were simply slaves to their husbands, and required freedom. Normal rape changed from an attack by a stranger hiding in the bushes to consensual sex that a woman regrets the next day. Sexual assault changed from a violent sexual attack to simply brushing up against a woman or going in for a kiss when she didn’t want it.

If we were to use these new definitions of the terms, it might stand to reason that the statistics are actually spot on. Perhaps 50% of women really have been in uncomfortable positions.

It doesn’t take much to convince a woman that if she feels discomfort, that perhaps she really was affected and possibly damaged by the experience. Her goal of heightening her victim status wouldn’t object to this minor modification of definition. Men are strong and women are weak.

The final nail in the coffin is that statistics themselves are very easy to fake. You can word surveys in such a way that you can get a result that you want, no matter what is true. Complex and leading questions can make points that even the survey subjects would object to.

If you asked every woman if she’s been in an uncomfortable position with a man, you’d be hard pressed to get a woman who said no. Likewise, most men could probably describe a scenario where they were uncomfortable with a woman, at some point.

If we asked every woman if she had been touched when she didn’t want to be or if she had any unwanted advances, there would be resounding yeses across the board, even though not every touch could be considered assault, and surely few would be actively violent. I can recall myself reading signals wrong on a date, leaning in for a kiss and getting a cheek. An unwanted advance it was, but no real threat or violence took place.

From this perspective, we see these possible motivations are quite compelling. We already know the definitions of rape and assault have changed dramatically. We know that the stats seem to overwhelmingly fail to align with our experiences. We know that stats can be misleading. And now we can see that there’s a possible motivation to say or do these things in a way that benefits women that isn’t consistent with actual rape or assault rates.

Red Flag Number Two: there is a plausible motivation or beneficiary of this false fact or belief.

Are the motivations to claim a falsehood more likely than the original belief being true?

It’s hard to say if our theory makes more sense than the possibility that maybe 1 in 5 women are just actually raped, and that ~45% of women are actually assaulted. If we believe the statistics, then we must assume the beneficiary of this crime would be the rapists. If we believe the statistics are false, the beneficiary would be the alleged victims.

It’s hard to measure the benefits of either. Presumably rapists who cannot control their evil actions are probably most relieved at being able to take action. Women who increase their access to proxy power are likely quite happy about their access to it. Is one happier than the other? Hard to say.

But we can measure the risks involved. To rape is a very large risk. Especially knowing how much a false rape accusation can ruin a man’s life, we know that simply having the allegation thrown at you can ruin one’s life and career. Even if we assume that rape convictions are hard to get due to lack of proof, the court of public opinion can still damage your life to a degree that would make some contemplate suicide.

On the other side of the coin, we have women who stand to benefit from false statistics and accusations. Their risk, individually, is very low. Every woman can claim victimhood from the statistic, regardless of her actual experiences. Even a woman who makes a direct false claim is protected from legal or social fallout. The balance of risk to reward is tilted in favor of reward for women, but heavily imbalanced towards risk for men.

Red Flag number three: The motivations for a belief to be false are more likely than for a belief to be true.

Are the actions of the victims consistent, coherent or logical for a victim?

If the statistics were correct, and the definitions of the words have not been sufficiently modified to meaninglessness, then we would have a large group of actual victims.

So we must ask, are their actions consistent with those of victims? If we had that many rapes or assaults, would we not see more accusations than we do today?

The initial response to this discrepancy is that rape or assault is an underreported crime. Victims are unsure that there will be a conviction, are worried about public appearance, or they just want to forget that it happens and pressing charges would remind them it did.

That makes some level of sense, if we assumed that rape was the one crime victims didn’t want to report. Victims of almost every other crime have no problem reporting it. But let’s be generous and say that rape is so traumatizing that anybody undergoing it would be physically incapable of reporting it. I think that’s very unlikely, but we can follow this logic to see if the rest holds to scrutiny.

What about sexual assault. We’re told that it happens everywhere. It happens on buses. It happens on the streets. It happens in public and private. Parties, work, bathrooms, gyms. Surely if the crime was assault, that is a physical, aggressive or violent attack, there would be an unlimited number of reports about it. If somebody assaulted me, I would report it.

Let’s say that women don’t report rape or sexual assault because they aren’t convinced there would be enough evidence for a conviction. Maybe they assume that it would be a waste of time and utterly embarrassing to do so. Surely these “survivors” would at the very least change their behaviors to stave off such attacks.

It’s commonly reported that frat parties are where college girls go to get raped. If the number of rapes were true, would it not stand to reason that women could easily avoid these dens of rape? It would seem, then, that even women don’t believe their own statistics.

If getting blackout drunk caused a large risk of being raped by a stranger at the bar, would a potential victim not avoid such behavior? A very simple step to take that would avoid what is almost statistically inevitable. One who believes that this crime happens at such a rate would simply not take such risks.

If going home or being alone with somebody increases your odds of rape, would you not avoid such behavior? In a group of five friends, one of you is certain to be raped. Would you not take standard precautions against such an awful reality?

When I am standing on a train, or riding a crowded bus, I move my wallet to my front pocket. I’m not sure how common pick-pocketing is, but I know it’s a real risk and I take measures to avoid it. I know that dark alleys in the big city are unsafe at night, and I avoid them accordingly. I wear a seat belt when driving my car, and I don’t smoke cigarettes due to the risk. Is avoiding common rape scenarios that impossible for women?

There is an alternative option. Women do not believe the rape statistics, even though they all seem to agree with them. People do not act contrary to what they believe. They may speak contrary to how they believe, but they will not act accordingly.

If you were sitting on train tracks, and saw a train coming towards you, you would act, and move out of the way according to your belief of the reality of the train. Belief is not a choice in this matter, but rather a result of your brain calculating what it understands about the world around you. Some beliefs may be more squarely based in reality than others, while some may be colored by bias and bad information. But all beliefs share the same quality: they are not questionable without different information.

If I explained to you that the train was a mirage, you probably wouldn’t believe me. You’d get up off the tracks anyhow until you’ve tested my hypothesis a few times. You may gradually change your belief about this train. But one thing’s for sure: you wouldn’t accidentally get run over by a train because you doubted your beliefs.

So if a woman describes having been assaulted or raped, and she believes the rape statistics, why would she then engage in a behavior that invalidates the belief? The answer: She does not believe the statistics, and likely doesn’t believe her own story. Her actions are inconsistent with a real victim.

Worse yet, offering these solutions to a victim or potential victim is considered victim blaming. In fact, it serves no purpose but to make their emotional problems worse. Instead of seeing a helping hand as a positive thing, they see it as undermining or invalidating their victim status. It would be clear that the motivations behind this victimhood aren’t to prevent or be healed of being a victim, but rather to preserve and prolong it.

Red Flag number four: The actions of those who purport to believe something are not consistent with somebody who actually believes it.

Obviously not every belief you analyze will be cut and dry on every point discussed here, but if it raises enough red flags, you’ve definitely found yourself room to improve, and it might bring you to a more effective worldview.

What do we do with this information? That I’ll discuss in my next installment.