The overwhelming majority of rape accusations are false

Follows from the poster girl principle. If poster girls suck then every other girl sucks as badly or worse. For example for example Marie Curie was a second rate scientist, therefore there are no great female scientists. Emmett Till was not lynched, nor killed for whistling at a white woman, therefore there are no examples of blacks being lynched in an obviously unjust fashion, or with reckless disregard for justice.

Earlier I posted this argument, but the early version neglects to mention the internal evidence from the Rolling Stone editors that they knew their rape story was unlikely to be true, went looking for something better, could not find it.

In 2015 Rolling Stone issued an apology for their “Rape on Campus” story. Their investigating reporter saw lots of red flags, that would have convinced any reasonable person that the rape accusation was false, and that going ahead with the story was likely to blow up in their faces, but they decided to go ahead with the story anyway. Deep within the apology there is a guilty line that I missed the first time around, and everyone seemingly missed. After encountering lots of horrid red flags that made it glaringly obvious that it was a really bad idea to pursue this story, that the complainant was lying through her teeth

That summer, Erdely began interviewing multiple UVA assault survivors.

In other words, there was a whole big pile of University of Virginia “Assault Survivors”, but all their stories sucked even worse than Jackie Coakley’s story, so they wound up going with Jackie Coakley’s story for lack of anything better. They were determined to do a rape on campus story about evil white males. They knew, consciously or subconsciously, that the story they had was false, but despite looking around, despite having lots of other “Assault Survivors”, could not find anything better.

In the “Rape on Campus” story Jackie Coakley, the supposed rape victim, lied to the reporter Erdeley, and it rapidly became obvious that she was lying. Erdeley lied to her editors, and her editors lied to the readers. The editors falsely led the reader to believe that Ryan Duffin, the love interest that Jackie Coakley was catfishing with her rape story, had been interviewed, thereby making the story seem as if it had not come from a single source, that Jackie Coakley’s story had supposedly been checked with the other people supposedly involved in that story. That the editors lied indicates mens rea, that they knew this was a mighty weak story and needed some creativity to make it seemingly credible.

In the original story Rolling Stone tells us:

a “shitshow” predicted by her now-former friend Randall, who, citing his loyalty to his own frat, declined to be interviewed.

Implying that they sought out witnesses and encountered the male wall of solidarity protecting rapists and penalizing rape victims. In actual fact, the editors knew full well that “Randal” (real name Ryan Duffin, the man that Jackie Coakley was catfishing in an unsuccessful campaign to get him to sleep with her) had not declined to be interviewed, because they had not attempted to interview him. Had they attempted to interview him, would have learned much that was inconsistent with Jackie Coakley’s story.

The magazine knew from the beginning that Jackie Coakley’s story was not credible, went looking for someone with a more credible story, decided to stick with Jackie Coakley. Therefore, rape complainants with a more credible story than Jackie Coakley are rare or nonexistent.

This is the same argument I made previously, but this time with internal evidence from the magazine that they knew their story was weak and went looking for something better.

At the time of the article, the University of Virginia had not expelled a single student for sexual assault, therefore if any of these “Assault Survivors” were credible, they would be telling pretty much the same story as Jackie Coakley. Therefore, every single one of them was even less credible than Jackie Coakley, and we can see the mens rea that the editors knew that Jackie Coakley was not credible.

Scott Alexander argues against the poster girl principle that maybe there are lots of real rapes, and the person gets convicted, so, no big deal, that the reason that fictitious campus rapes gets reported is because some people doubt their reality, therefore no prosecution, therefore controversy. So, because of controversy, we hear false rape allegations widely reported and fail to hear real rape allegations, because they get dealt with efficiently. But, until the story, no expulsions for sexual assault from the University of Virginia, and yet lots of “Sexual Assault survivors”. So either the university was letting people get away with rape, or else all the “sexual assault survivors” are lying. And, since Jackie Coakley was what the Rolling Stone ultimately ran with despite knowing their story was weak and looking for something better, all the “sexual assault survivors” at Virginia were lying even more blatantly than Jackie Coakley. Rolling Stone was looking for a more credible story, looked at all the other “sexual assault survivors”, did not find what it was looking for.

Rolling Stone tells us that in the previous year at Virginia University, their had been 38 complaints of sexual assault.

of those 38, only nine resulted in “complaints”; the other 29 students evaporated. Of those nine complaints, four resulted in Sexual Misconduct Board hearings.

None of these four resulted in anyone being expelled for assault.

So, either the University is blowing off real sexual assaults, or thirty eight of thirty eight complaints of sexual assault were flagrantly bogus.

And if any of those thirty eight complaints were not flagrantly bogus, Rolling stone would surely have gone with that one instead of, or as well as, the one they did go with.

41 Responses to “The overwhelming majority of rape accusations are false”

  1. Grotesque Body says:

    Proofread.

  2. Wilbur Hassenfus says:

    The way it was reported at the time, Erdely went with Jackie’s story because it was the most lurid, striking, and bizarre. She rejected the true stories not because they were less plausible, but because they were more plausible, which is to say they were inferior propaganda material. The real-life behavior of reckless, extroverted young drunks is not the behavior of sadistic, calculating blue-eyed demons like Haven Monahan.

    I think they believed it. They “knew” it was true, but couldn’t prove it because the clever blue-eyed demons (as always) were too privileged for their crimes to leave concrete traces in the material plane, so they lied to defend the Faith. You underestimate the stupidity of these people.

    • Wilbur Hassenfus says:

      On the other hand I was dead wrong about the cops in Cleveland at the RNC.

    • jim says:

      Erdely went with Jackie’s story because it was the most lurid, striking, and bizarre. She rejected the true stories not because they were less plausible, but because they were more plausible,

      The University failed to expel the supposed rapists in any of the other stories, therefore all the other stores were comparably good for making the point that Rolling Stone sought to make.

      • Wilbur Hassenfus says:

        The point RS wanted to make is that Haven Monahan is an inhuman diabolical monster. Ambiguous drunken rutting doesn’t make that point. The Koed Krystallnacht that Jackie dreamed up does. If you believe that an innocent young white girl was gang raped on broken glass by Nazis who called her “it”, you become much angrier than if you believe that yet another drunk girl can’t remember whether she wanted to swallow or not.

  3. Grotesque Body says:

    “Scott Alexander argues…”

    Scott Alexander is, inexplicably, taken very seriously by NRxers despite being the epitome of a progressive cuck.

    • pedanticmoron says:

      He’s a smart guy, that’s really all there is to it. Whether he’s a prog or not doesn’t matter if he tends to give valid insight and reliable analysis (he does, even if it’s a tad wanting at times). Progs aren’t always wrong about everything.

      Secondary point, but does Jim even consider himself NRx? I’m not sure I’d consider him NRx given the state of NRx today.

      • jim says:

        He is clever, very well informed, and when seriously deluded, as he so often is, he is deluded in interesting and clever ways.

        He has the typical Jewish characteristic of making up too clever by half explanations for what he wants to believe, but his rationalizations have less chutzpah and more cleverness than is typical for Jews.

        • Grotesque Body says:

          Simultaneously very well informed and seriously deluded.

          • jim says:

            Exactly so.

          • pedanticmoron says:

            He’s a smart guy obsessed with factual accuracy, but he’s a prog so his theoretical framework w/r/t politics and most social phenomena is lacking.

            He’s rarely completely wrong about an issue, generally has some very worthwhile things to say.

            • jim says:

              He is usually fundamentally wrong, seldom completely wrong. In this, stereotypically Jewish only more so. Which usually makes him a worthwhile read.

              His explanations as to why he believes the unbelievable are at worst entertaining, at best informative, and he often comes as close to the truth as he can without committing crime think. He devotes great cleverness to getting close to crimethink without actually crimethinking.

      • jim says:

        I am Dark Englightenment.

        What is NRx? Well these days, NRx is a secretive conspiracy, so you don’t necessarily know what the state of NRx is today.

        NRx is arguably the reason why none of the numerous alt righters at the Republican National Convention said “Heil Hitler”, or “day of the rope” loud enough to be overheard by the dense swarm of journalists.

        You can say terrible things in front of journalists provided you stay one inferential step away from the unthinkable. Crimestop will prevent them from taking that inferential step.

        • Alf says:

          So wait. The argument is that if NRx (= Hestia? I equate neoreaction with Hestia pretty much) were completely honest in public they would be discussing interesting stuff like the nigger question. They did not do so at the RNC because it is best to stay one step away from the unthinkable in front of journalists. So the crimestop applies to the journalists.

      • peppermint says:

        » valid insight and reliable analysis

        yeah, no, his analysis is breathtakingly retarded, and his insight is worthless. He coined the phrase “malicious inter-community transfer”, which is what Trump publicly accuses Mexico of, though not in those words, because no one has even heard of him outside of progressives who want to think themselves truth-seekers.

        Here’s another meme that no one will ever actually use: http://imgur.com/UELUXIG.jpg

  4. > the thing they apologize for is nowhere to be found. Has anyone backed up a copy?

    You can find an early version via the Internet Archive “Wayback Machine” here:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20141201135720/http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119

  5. Brit says:

    It is clear that among young women being a ‘survivor’ of some sort is high status and rewarding socially, for the same reason they all exaggerate degree of male interest. And I think they genuinly believe in their stories, convincing themselves, because of their twisted incentives to do so.

  6. Here is why virtually every rape accusation in the US by a woman who knows her attacker’s name is false.
    In the US, women face no serious consequences for making a false rape accusation. Men who rape and are accused are sent to prison for a long time.
    So in a large population, you find many women making false rape accusations, but virtually no men raping women who can immediately finger them.

    The only exceptions you find are people like Clinton who are so politically connected they are confident the woman will be squelched or silenced if she complains.

  7. Glen Filthie says:

    So there’s a ‘male wall of silence’ up now, huh? Just as there’s a ‘blue wall’ up when the media talks to cops – who won’t say shit to them if their mouths are full of it.

    These men know what they’re doing. You NEVER talk to the media. They live to sell copy and make ratings, not report facts. Ethics and morals don’t enter into it. You can’t use them, they will use you even if you’re on their side. They know what they’re doing too. If you have to talk to them, make sure YOU record the interview as well.

    I get my info from the blogosphere and from the comment sections of the mainstream media. I don’t click on their ads. I’ve been banned from commenting at most of their sites because when they troll me – I troll them right back. I’m smarter than your brighter media slob and they know it.

    BTW, Hillary recently said rape victims have a right to be heard and believed. Screw her – rape victims report the crime to the police and open an official case investigation – or it didn’t happen, as far as I’m concerned. If America votes for that cnut they will deserve what they get.

  8. viking says:

    There seems to be more wrong with NRX than their closetedness its seeming like some new version of progress what was that film Elysium.
    Always preferred “Dark Enlightenment” anyway Ironic land coined it I think

    I enjoy bombast more than the next guy but sometimes jim….
    The problem i have is almost all woman i know have actually actually been raped [niggers spics fathers foreign police and school bullys the commonest culprits] for real, and I have been a rape skeptic since the 70s, and thats not to say they were not stupid or naive but ide like a world where my daughters can go through a period of youthful stupidity and naivete without being raped.
    so while I agree with you about how many false report there are, its disturbing to hear these declarative statements that rape never happens at least to the father of ……
    And Im talking about women with a modicum of agency, if as you assert none have agency then all sex is rape no? or is talking kids into sex ok?
    I think our whole culture has abdicated agency and women are more conformist, so less autonomous, and so yes that makes their consent dubious, and tentative, but whats a guy to do. It used to be he was not to be a total cad, and if she turned out to be crazy or vindictive well then legally and socially there was little recourse,but she had been well warned which made stranger rape easier to prosecute on a woman’s word but acquaintance rape harder.Also a father brother etc could always set things right if things fell between the cracks. these sorts of social arrangements depend on a finer tuned civilization, you cant fine tune a multicultural civilization.
    I do think you the poster girl principle has some validity, But the nature of rape makes it not only difficult to discern truth and prosecute but to report -not that they are looking to report truth.The poster girl phenomenon may be more a product of they simple dont even care to look for a true case are so secure in their ability to lie with impunity that they only look for the narrative case that will sell. Im not convinced leftys dont laugh all the way to the white house dinner about cases like these blowing up, they know only conservatives remember that part, the rest of the idiots just remember some vague hysteria about the campus rape epidemic so mission accomplished.I think if one can find solutions in a progressive framed society its going to be hammering at the fact that women cant both claim agency and rape that wasnt violent,That not fighting like hall a date rapist is consenting because theres no real danger
    .And simultaneously hammering home that the boys are some womens child and if convicted he will really be raped and beaten and imprisoned maybe even be killed., so accusation that can be proven false beyond a reasonable doubt will be criminally prosecuted as an attempt to rape beat murder and imprison someone -hard time.
    That we have always understood that some criminals, even murderers, will go free because our standard is beyond a reasonable doubt rape one of the hardest crimes to prosecute cant be an exception.That impaired capacity cant be a one way street where one party is held to sober standards and the other exonerated of agency, while being drunk is not licence to rape being drunk is risky behavior that should only be done with people you trust or in groups you trust

    • jim says:

      I think you are far too trusting and credulous. What women say should not really be believed, even if the women herself believes it.

      And Im talking about women with a modicum of agency, if as you assert none have agency then all sex is rape no? or is talking kids into sex ok?

      The very concept of rape and consent attributes unrealistic agency to women. As in the old testament, we should give female consent as little moral and legal weight as possible. In the seventeenth century and much of the eighteenth century “rape” primarily meant dating a woman without the consent of her parent or guardian.

      I don’t think women have agency in sexual matters, since between menarche and menopause their sexual actions are driven by volcanic forces of which they are scarcely aware. They do not want what they want, and they do want what they do not want. Nor do female children get “talked into sex”. If you have good preselection from adult women, female children with no breasts who have not yet experienced menarche will sexually harass you. The problem of adult men having sex with female children is primarily a problem of badly behaved female children, not badly behaved adult men. With women who have boobs, men pursue, and women choose, for sperm is cheap and eggs are dear. Pre boobs, and pre menarche, which is to say pre eggs, the shoe is apt to be on the other foot.

      The poster girl phenomenon may be more a product of they simple dont even care to look for a true case.

      But after they hit some red flags, they did go looking for a true case. If they found one true case, why not present it side by side with the more dramatic case?

      The university had thirty eight sexual assault complaints, and blew off all thirty eight of them. So either the university is behaving extraordinarily badly, or women are behaving extraordinarily badly. Rolling Stone went looking for evidence that the university was behaving badly, could not find it. Therefore women are behaving extraordinarily badly.

      • viking says:

        lol well at least there one guy in this world that says more outrageous shit than me, Youre wrong though jim Im a very asute guy with women hundreds is my number and i know allmost every one of them was rape raped now i realize being a now recovering alcoholic that my women were not random samples they were in bars and clubs and AA meetings and attracted to the second coming of lord byron guy but still its close to 100% and friends and family members also granted very few of these were the kind of rape we are complaining about you know the kind that didnt involve sex or wasnt rape, I wouldnt even quibble but i think youre a brilliant guy and well this is a bit much.

        • jim says:

          all most every one of them was rape raped

          My sample differs from your own. My sample strikingly resembles the University of Virginia sample.

          • viking says:

            Let me be clear the “campus rape epidemic ” is a potemkin hoax no doubt.But it finds fertile ground in the minds of women born in a world where they are no longer protected by their men.its a crime punishable by rape and death to protect your women you realize if you act they will surely be left alone, If you dont they might as well be. Rotherham wasnt a hoax fathers that tried to stop it were made examples of

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              Fathers who tried to stop Rotherham rapes were not killed.

              But most of the girls did not have interested or capable fathers, which is why Rotherham was possible.

              The sexual practices of the Muslim gangs in Rotherham probably did not differ that greatly from the natives of their own social class. The Muslims just tended to win more because they were organised.

              • peppermint says:

                — The sexual practices of the Muslim gangs in Rotherham probably did not differ that greatly from the natives of their own social class.

                Oh look, it’s the reflexive evenhandedness of the liberal. The very fact the girls got caught up it shows that your assertion is completely wrong.

              • jim says:

                Fathers who tried to stop Rotherham rapes were not killed.

                Fathers who tried to stop the Rotherham rapes were however arrested for “racism”.

                The sexual practices of the Muslim gangs in Rotherham probably did not differ that greatly from the natives of their own social class.

                Your PC is showing. If they did not differ greatly from the natives, then no need for sensitivity to “racism”

        • Jack Highlands says:

          ‘I claim to have experienced collected anecdote X. I interpret it Y. Because I, Viking, do this, Y must be true.’

          You cogitate like a woman.

  9. lalit says:

    Well Rapes do occur, obviously. But the perpetrators are not of the demographic that leftie Rags like Rolling Stone are looking for. If a rape story is what you want, go to any area in any western city with a large Islamic demographic.

    • peppermint says:

      More recently, the Left finally managed to get a picture of a FUCKING WHITE MALE who committed a “rape”.

      Turns out, he took this chick home from a party, she decided to sit down next to a dumpster, they started making out, and he fingerbanged her before realizing she was passed out.

      White women on Facebook were plastering his picture everywhere as if they were sexually attracted to him for being the one White guy forward enough to initiate sexual contact.

  10. Alan J. Perrick says:

    It would be interesting to see which professors worked hand-in-glove with the Rolling Stone reporters. I think that professors care a good deal more about their reputation than media do.

    A.J.P.

  11. JRM says:

    Does rape exist? I read that it is a regular feature of wartime. I tend to believe there was rape on a large scale when the Soviets came to Berlin. I don’t think those rapes occurred “after some drinks”.

    But what about today? Well, first I’ll discard any stories of “rape” that involve dating and alcohol. A good many “rapes” are no doubt wishful thinking and LARP-ing gone wild. Any campus based “rape” involving a White frat boy needs rigorous and (yes) doubtful investigating.

    Real rapes, though? I believe they do occur. Victims will usually be suffering bodily injury, and may already even be dead. The perpetrators are “young black men” those darlings of the moment.

    If your victim is sporting some vivid physical testimonials to struggle, and doesn’t know the name of the attacker, and is rather uncomfortable recounting the experience as opposed to stopping people in the street to detail it, you just may be looking at the victim of a bona fide crime.

    • peppermint says:

      White armies don’t rape, but Black and Jew and Muslim armies do, and some traitorous White generals count on Black and Jew and Muslim armies to rape White women in occupied territories

      • jim says:

        Again, I would add that I think that the modern concept of rape credits women with an improbable degree of agency rendering statements about “rape” unclear.

        It used to be extremely common behavior in white armies to abduct the women, or to slaughter the men, enslave the fertile age women, and settle the land. The difference between them and nonwhite armies being that they usually did not pass the women around like a bottle of beer.

        On the other hand, in the sack of Rome and the Russian conquest of Germany, they did pass the women around like bottles of beer, but this behavior is atypical.

  12. Cloudswrest says:

    “For example Marie Curie was a second rate scientist, therefore there are no great female scientists.”

    For some reason a real example of a first rate woman mathematician seems down the memory hole. Emmy Noether. But apparently, reading between the lines, it came at some biological cost.

    [Asked for a testimony to the effect that Emmy Noether was a great woman mathematician, he said:]
    “I can testify that she is a great mathematician, but that she is a woman, I cannot swear.”- E. Landau
    J.E. Littlewood, A Mathematician’s Miscellany, Methuen and Co ltd., 1953.

    • peppermint says:

      Marie Curie was famous during the first wave of feminism. Emmy Noether did good work while feminism was dormant, so she is forgotten. They just found a woman mathematician to give a Field’s Medal to – from Iran.

      What does this imply?

      It implies that women only do good scientific work under a strong patriarchy.

Leave a Reply