People who lie about SA/etc. and destroy people's lives are unfortunately real (regardless of gender/sex) and isn't that uncommon. This is an extremely sensitive and controversial issue for everyone, that I don't think can be fairly distilled into a sweeping generalized accusation.
Rape and sexual assault occurr more often than fake accusations.
This is a factually true statement regardless of how anyone feels about it.
Survivors rarely make false reports about sexual assault. Only 6% of sexual assaults are reported to the police. And false accusations of sexual assault happen no more than false reports of other types of crime: about 2% to 4%, which means 96% to 98% of the reports are true.
Justifying that men should wear these glasses in order to avoid a false accusation of sexual assault sure is something you can do.
Since rape and sexual assault happen at much, much higher frequencies, wouldn't it make more sense to push that women should be wearing these glasses everywhere?
Thank you, I wasn't the person you were originally replying too and honestly just didn't know what you were driving at, but that really does connect the dots.
Personally the idea of third-party to hold people accountable is something i am in favor in general. "Honor" societies sound and look miserable to me, with constant need for displays of power and dominance just to avoid brutality and the idea of justice being an impartial actor is a good thing to me. I do not trust the State currently to be that at the interpersonal level or Meta (or any for profit corporation) so they can't be a good impartial judge needed. So I think any person of any gender assigning them to be so like this is a bad idea, though maybe private storage might be acceptable? I still find that level of distrust for interpersonal relationship sad.
I have and expect most women do, use a message location tracking shared with friends when meeting a stranger in a private or intimate way, so we am closer to that path than I really thought of before.
A distinction needs to be made of false criminal reports, and false claims in general.
False claims of any crime are going to be substantially higher than false criminal reports of the same crime. The barrier to entry is just much lower. And there is still a social cost to being falsely accused of a crime even without a police report. (Loss of employment, social alienation).
It's also probably not true that it happens at the same rate as other reports. Certain crimes are more plausible to lie about than others, I would imagine false homicide claims are rare since there aren't mountains of dead people to pin on someone.
In the case of things like sexual assault and child abuse, there is lots of positive sympathy to exploit for something that is almost impossible to prove wrong, so the cost-benefit is much better than most other accusations of crime.
(Notice how often child molestation comes up in criminal defenses? It's an easy way to milk sympathy, while being impossible to disprove.)
Probably the same reason you're not wearing one either. It's not a problem until it happens to you.
I didn't want to have to put cameras all around both the outside AND inside my house either, but after breakins and vandalism the police proved to me I'm completely on my own. My insurance also dropped me after I tried to make a claim "without sufficient evidence."
If all these men are claiming all these women are out to get them and make false statements, they would have already been using every tool available, hence they would have been wearing some form of body cam prior to this. They are simply saying it now, because it's way more discreet to use these glasses and potentially use them for other purposes.
If you are using cameras for some kind of defense, you make them loud and proud, not super discreet. They are designed to be a visual deterrent so the possible crime is less likely to happen in the first place.
Given the controversy already present with "super discreet", wouldn't you expect even greater negative social pressure with "loud and proud"?
It seems obvious that acting paranoid (regardless of sex or the subject of fear), results in negative views of the person, so they would naturally want to hide their paranoia.
rapist says what?
People who lie about SA/etc. and destroy people's lives are unfortunately real (regardless of gender/sex) and isn't that uncommon. This is an extremely sensitive and controversial issue for everyone, that I don't think can be fairly distilled into a sweeping generalized accusation.
More uncommon than rape and sexual assault.
"X suffers more so Y issues don't matter."
Be better.
I never said they don’t matter. Work on your reading comprehension.
What were you saying then? I also don't see another interpretation tbh
Rape and sexual assault occurr more often than fake accusations.
This is a factually true statement regardless of how anyone feels about it.
Survivors rarely make false reports about sexual assault. Only 6% of sexual assaults are reported to the police. And false accusations of sexual assault happen no more than false reports of other types of crime: about 2% to 4%, which means 96% to 98% of the reports are true.
The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. We now know two facts.
Justifying that men should wear these glasses in order to avoid a false accusation of sexual assault sure is something you can do.
Since rape and sexual assault happen at much, much higher frequencies, wouldn't it make more sense to push that women should be wearing these glasses everywhere?
Thank you, I wasn't the person you were originally replying too and honestly just didn't know what you were driving at, but that really does connect the dots.
Personally the idea of third-party to hold people accountable is something i am in favor in general. "Honor" societies sound and look miserable to me, with constant need for displays of power and dominance just to avoid brutality and the idea of justice being an impartial actor is a good thing to me. I do not trust the State currently to be that at the interpersonal level or Meta (or any for profit corporation) so they can't be a good impartial judge needed. So I think any person of any gender assigning them to be so like this is a bad idea, though maybe private storage might be acceptable? I still find that level of distrust for interpersonal relationship sad.
I have and expect most women do, use a message location tracking shared with friends when meeting a stranger in a private or intimate way, so we am closer to that path than I really thought of before.
A distinction needs to be made of false criminal reports, and false claims in general.
False claims of any crime are going to be substantially higher than false criminal reports of the same crime. The barrier to entry is just much lower. And there is still a social cost to being falsely accused of a crime even without a police report. (Loss of employment, social alienation).
It's also probably not true that it happens at the same rate as other reports. Certain crimes are more plausible to lie about than others, I would imagine false homicide claims are rare since there aren't mountains of dead people to pin on someone.
In the case of things like sexual assault and child abuse, there is lots of positive sympathy to exploit for something that is almost impossible to prove wrong, so the cost-benefit is much better than most other accusations of crime.
(Notice how often child molestation comes up in criminal defenses? It's an easy way to milk sympathy, while being impossible to disprove.)
So he keeps the glasses on during intercourse? should all men now wear dashcams?
Why weren't they wearing body cams prior if it's the real reason?
Probably the same reason you're not wearing one either. It's not a problem until it happens to you.
I didn't want to have to put cameras all around both the outside AND inside my house either, but after breakins and vandalism the police proved to me I'm completely on my own. My insurance also dropped me after I tried to make a claim "without sufficient evidence."
If all these men are claiming all these women are out to get them and make false statements, they would have already been using every tool available, hence they would have been wearing some form of body cam prior to this. They are simply saying it now, because it's way more discreet to use these glasses and potentially use them for other purposes.
If you are using cameras for some kind of defense, you make them loud and proud, not super discreet. They are designed to be a visual deterrent so the possible crime is less likely to happen in the first place.
Given the controversy already present with "super discreet", wouldn't you expect even greater negative social pressure with "loud and proud"?
It seems obvious that acting paranoid (regardless of sex or the subject of fear), results in negative views of the person, so they would naturally want to hide their paranoia.
If they are honestly using it as a defense to false accusations, they SHOULD be ok with being loud and proud about it.
Saying "I'm taking precautions against you" is borderline accusatory. If this was the true reason no socially competent person would say this.
Ding ding ding. You're 100% right that the people saying this aren't socially competent.
Either they can't socialize normally, or they are using this as a smoke screen to justify being pervy. Or both. Probably both.