This particular woman, my false accuser, checked all the boxes for Borderline Personality Disorder, with a side of Antisocial Personality disorder. A sociopath, who thought nothing of lying, setting people up, and in fact, she considered it a personal triumph of her brilliance to successfully deceive others. The problem is that people like this are around 6% of the population, just for BPD, and that’s not eve bringing in other Cluster B personality disorders like Narcissistic and Histrionic. (Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2676679/)

False allegations are a specialty of BPDs. (And Narcissists too) In fact, BPDs rearrange facts, data, sequences of events, in their heads, to match their *emotions*, and then come to believe their own fictionalized, emotionalized account. The implication is then they can lie convincingly, with absolutely congruent nonverbals, crocodile tears, the works, and get numerous other people to believe their lies. Google around a little on the phrase “BPD distortion campaign”, and you’ll start to get a small sense of what these people are capable of.

Here is a recap of a classic false rape allegation by a woman who has a lot in common with my ex-girlfriend. http://shrink4men.com/2011/06/28/ex-girlfriend-tracy-west-makes-false-rape-allegations-against-her-sons-father-to-gain-sole-custody-and-the-state-of-california-refuses-to-prosecute-her/

If you, like Louis Gonzalez III in the story above, were falsely accused of rape by a jilted ex-girlfriend, what protections would you want for yourself against being railroaded for these life-threatening false accusations? And no, these women won’t show you their true nature until they are sure they have you “hooked”, so you won’t necessarily see it coming. It’s like the frog in the cold pan of water that gradually gets heated to boiling. Mr. Gonzalez spent 83 days in solitary confinement, based on this evil woman’s false accusations, and in this case, it certainly appears the “justice” system is set up to handle the accused as presumed guilty.

Of course, these predatory serial false accusers never get prosecuted; the State of California did not file any charges against Tracy West.

Since false rape allegations can destroy a man’s life, at a level comparable to how a real rape can destroy a woman’s life, shouldn’t the enforcement emphasis (actual prosecution of obvious false accusers like Ms. West) and the punishment for the crime be similar?

another small observation: there is a manner to the expressions of those who just don’t “get” the more developed expressions of ethics and you know instantly if a writer is one of them for whom your ideas are outside their experience. Since the midterm election, I’ve been grappling with my shock at being so wrong about what my fellow Americans want and believe. Then, a days listen to the refined observations of the fine men I mentioned before and I have had my own version of an epiphany: the Age of Relativism is over. People like the commenter before me are just wrong or dangerous or scary or crazy or bad or something…there is no “right to your own opinion” here.

carry on…

So, commented on the sparse page of his site and said I’d be looking him up. Thank you for your careful and inclusive information that achieves what I imagine to be part of your mission: ensuring the information cannot be accused of being hostile gossip.

While I’m proud of my “sh*t detector” I’m still a tiny bit upset but hey, his manicky babbling on first sight, his casual condescending insult for the purpose of manipulating his audience was unseemly for my expectation of a skeptic as a thoughtful, even erudite. I’m grateful for your work and confirming my concerns with such high reporting standards. I don’t need to read any more about this but…I do wonder about his actual level of education and/or any background he may have in used car sales!

pamelarose

I like how you not only come in with the pathetic sexism and stupid rape apologetics, and a veiled condemnation of humanism (“yay sociopathy!”), but throw in some racism for good measure. Way to advertise your brand there.

Honestly. You just crazy uncled.

I also saw god when I left his room, I don’t wanna go into details about what god looked like, but I can assure you I am the messiah and you all need to give me money. I <3 Atheism+ btw. Very influential. Had it not been for + I would never know I could live without hating fags, jews, spics, niggers, or chinks. I mean the atheist bible clearly-…. Oh yeah forgot. The only solidarity a non stamp collector has with someone else who doesn't collect stamps is; not collecting stamps. #skepticismthrownoutwindow #didntrealizewewerebiblethumpers #niggazbetrippin

Articles like these is what have turned men into wussies.

I love how you immediately start with a childishly crypto-sexist remark–caring about women and what they think and feel and say makes men weak, and then saying this by avoiding the more obviously sexist implications of calling men “pussies,” and instead adopting the conflation of “wimp” and “pussy” as if that solved the problem of implying women are intrinsically pathetic and the worst way to insult a man is to equate him with a woman.

So you just exposed where you are on the sexist-humanist spectrum: pretty well over toward the non-humanist side.

“Propositioning women you’ve barely even met, and have built no rapport with and have no idea what they think or feel about such things, is wrong.” I would disagree, Do I recommend it? No. But if you are honest in your intent, confident, not creepy, and respectful. This is not NECESSARILY wrong.

I will grant that in certain highly unusual circumstances (e.g. in the middle of an orgy) that might be true. But somehow I don’t think that’s what you mean. It sounds like you really mean treating women as just sexual targets, i.e. showing no interest in getting to know them as persons and just bypassing that whole “you’re a person” thing by directly propositioning strangers for sex without having any idea they are fine with that first, is okay.

Most woman will not sleep with you right there, but if they perceive that you are not a threat, they may consider your offer later. They know you are clear, that you know what you want, and you are not beating around the bush, pretending that you dont want to fuck her, while she knows you want to. Guys try to seduce woman like she will be in bed before she realizes it is too late.

You clearly don’t know much about women. Indeed, you don’t even seem to be acknowledging anything about their actual interests and concerns here.

I’ll attempt to be charitable and assume you don’t really mean that “most women” (or indeed any significant percentage of them) actually want you to open your first conversation with them with a blunt admission that you want to fuck them (without even knowing anything about them as a person, but responding solely to their appearance!), however politely phrased. That simply negates them as a person and reduces them to an object. Which most women are smart enough to notice. That’s why they don’t like that.

Instead, I’ll assume what you really mean is that once you’ve gotten to know a woman at least a little, and allowed them to get to know you at least a little, (from, say, at least half an hour of meaningful or flirtatious conversation), and they’ve brought up the subject of sex or indicated that they might be interested in something more, that politely indicating your interest in them is sometimes okay. That’s pushing the limits of good sense, but I can at least imagine scenarios where that would be true, although in reality usually you need at least an hour, and/or very clear signs, before it is honestly possible to intimate sexual interest in a way that does not declare your disinterest in them as a person but in fact communicates that your interest is partly dtiven by who they are as a person and not just their physical body devoid of their mind.

“Getting women drunk with the intent of having sex with them (without first establishing that they are okay with that) is wrong.” I kind of disagree. It is sleazy, it is the easy way. I would not have much respect for a man that does this…

Loss of respect for any person P is what occurs when P does something wrong. If they didn’t do anything wrong, there could be no rational basis for losing respect for them. So you don’t seem to be disagreeing with me here.

If your intent is to use drugs to manipulate people, there is something despicable about you. Unless they are explicitly on board with the idea…

…but no one ever says “Hey, lets establish that I will fill your glass so that you will want to have sex with me”…

Actually, yes, they do. I’ve done that several times. Not in those inept words, of course. But my wife has explicitly told me I have standing permission to have sex with her regardless of her state of inebriation at the time (because, you know, spouses communicate and talk about things). And I’ve had lovers tell me they want to have sex with me but want to get a little drunk first. And I’ve asked lovers, as they start to drink, whether they would be okay with something happening later if they get drunk (and how drunk would be too drunk for that). And so on.

If a woman says yes to that, you most likely can have sex with her without having to buy a single drink.

Only if they agree to. Just because a woman expressed sexual interest doesn’t mean you get to have sex with her whenever you want. Even if you often have had sex with her. Spousal rape is a thing.

Also, if a girl does not want to drink, and the guy fills her glass, she should simply put it aside and not drink it. Or when she is filling tispy, stop drinking. It takes two to tango.

So women don’t get to have the same rights as men? Men can drink and get drunk and enjoy that without deserving to get raped, but women can’t? You are sounding like a Muslim here. Poor women are asking for it if they get drunk. But men can get drunk all they want.

If you do not want to drink and a gay man fills your glass, you should simply put it aside and not drink it. Because he might rape you. Or when you are feeling tipsy, you should stop drinking. Because he might rape you.

If those sound like silly recommendations to you, they are.

Yet, because you don’t seem to recognize women are human beings, you were not even able to put yourselves in their perspective to see how silly your recommendations are. You negated women as people. Again. Yet when you treat them as people, and seriously ask if you’d give that advice even to yourself (or indeed any man) before audaciously offering it to women, notice how you get a different conclusion about all this than you just did.

You know what the correct recommendations are? If someone is drunk, don’t rape them.

The shame that women can feel from having sex with a guy they just met can be very strong. This is mainly because of social programing. Alcohol is a drug that numbs that programing, So her instincts may be telling her that she should have sex, she wants to have sex, but her intellect is telling her she should not, its too soon, what are people going to say etc. She maybe gave in while still having that conflict in her mind, then when the alcohol wears off, social programing is in full strength. Ergo, she concludes he tried to rape her, or took advantage.

This sexist and demeaning fantasy about how women’s minds work is disturbing. Not least because it reveals how little you have ever known any woman as a person. You really don’t even have a clue about what women think or how they think. And in place of that gaping hole of ignorance, born of evidently never having had a serious conversation with a woman about things like this (or possibly anything), you fill that hole with sexist rape apologetics that reflect cultural thinking that had already become antiquated by the end of the 1950s.

Please don’t have sex with a drunk woman. I do not trust that you are capable of knowing when you are raping them. And that makes you dangerous, even if you don’t realize it.

P.S. Possibly you’ve had lots of conversations with women and just didn’t listen to anything they said. I allow that as a possibility, because it is common behavior among sexists, and is equally good an explanation for why you have such bizarre, antiquated and wholly inaccurate ideas about women.

“Propositioning women you’ve barely even met, and have built no rapport with and have no idea what they think or feel about such things, is wrong.”

I would disagree, Do I recommend it? No. But if you are honest in your intent, confident, not creepy, and respectful. This is not NECESSARILY wrong. Most woman will not sleep with you right there, but if they perceive that you are not a threat, they may consider your offer later. They know you are clear, that you know what you want, and you are not beating around the bush, pretending that you dont want to fuck her, while she knows you want to. Guys try to seduce woman like she will be in bed before she realizes it is too late.

“Getting women drunk with the intent of having sex with them (without first establishing that they are okay with that) is wrong.”

I kind of disagree. It is sleazy, it is the easy way. I would not have much respect for a man that does this, but no one ever says “Hey, lets establish that I will fill your glass so that you will want to have sex with me”…If a woman says yes to that, you most likely can have sex with her without having to buy a single drink. Also, if a girl does not want to drink, and the guy fills her glass, she should simply put it aside and not drink it. Or when she is filling tispy, stop drinking. It takes two to tango.

I will tell you what I think happened(speculating).

The shame that women can feel from having sex with a guy they just met can be very strong. This is mainly because of social programing. Alcohol is a drug that numbs that programing, So her instincts may be telling her that she should have sex, she wants to have sex, but her intellect is telling her she should not, its too soon, what are people going to say etc. She maybe gave in while still having that conflict in her mind, then when the alcohol wears off, social programing is in full strength. Ergo, she concludes he tried to rape her, or took advantage.

Because of this conflict I think it is sleazy to sleep with a woman by getting her drunk. Not wrong entirely, because the woman may want to have sex, but definitely classless.

You may be able to use a statistic that most women who claim to have been raped by a named attacker

The question is what statistic you are using. And why.

Period.

Are you being responsible in your assumptions, or not? That’s all there is to it. Don’t try to hide from this fact. Face and accept it.

But if your aim is to draw a conclusion about a particular accusation, the statistics no longer matter. We know that there are women who ARE delusional, mentally ill, or simply hateful that do make false accusations of this sort. We also know that there are women who point a finger at a man in sincerity claiming he is the rapist, when evidence eventually turns up showing that he was not. To determine whether this woman is either of those two types requires evidence specific to this matter at hand. In other words, if you want to find the truth of a particular case, you can’t rely on statistics. You have to rely on evidence of the particular case in question. There is simply NO evidence in this case.

To place any kind of probability based on no empirical data is what they call “making a wild-ass guess” in my neck of the woods. Calling this “responsible skepticism” is, in my opinion, a laughable and embarrassing conceit.

I’m not here to say Shermer is innocent and I’m not here to condemn you for believing that he is probably guilty.

Then you are a lousy writer.

In any event, since you just said you agree with me, there is nothing left to discuss. Any miscommunication you caused is now resolved.

How can you assign any number at all since you don’t know anything about the accuser?

It is logically impossible to have any belief-state that does not entail for you an epistemic probability that x for any x. “I don’t know either way” entails 50%. Everything else entails having reasons to believe it’s less, or reasons to believe it’s more. If you have no reason to believe it’s less or more, then necessarily you are saying you have no reason to believe it’s anything other than 50%.

Your folly is in not realizing that.

For a complete analysis of the problem, read Proving History, pp. 83-88 and 110-14.

And while I would never AUTOMATICALLY assume she is mentally unstable or a liar, these are certainly valid questions to consider to gauge the probability that her accusations are true. Without knowing this, how in the world can one assign such a precise number to her relatively vague statement?

It’s called a prior probability.

Do you assume most women claiming to be raped are mentally unstable liars? If so, based on what background evidence? If not, then do you assume half of all women claiming to be raped are mentally unstable liars? If so, based on what background evidence? If not, then you must assume women claiming to be raped are more likely than not not mentally unstable liars. And whatever frequency you assume, of how many women claiming to be raped are mentally unstable liars, you have to justify with reliable evidence, or abandon for a frequency you can justify. (And this can be done a fortiori, so you don’t have to know the actual frequency, just what it is very unlikely to be: see Proving History, index “a fortiori”.)

That’s how responsible skepticism actually works.