The Myths of Sex Trafficking and Sex Slavery, Research papers, Prostitution, Human Trafficking statistics, Sex Workers, sex tourism, Somaly Mam, Facts, Lies, Truth, report, essay, term paper, study, project, Fact Sheet, Sex Slaves, Super Bowl, urban legend, Olympics, world cup, child prostitution, victims, help, Denver, Colorado, Colorado Springs, USA, United States, America, India, Thailand, Philippines, Cambodia, Asia, Brazil, College, University, Boulder, Fort Collins, exaggerated statistics, numbers, Thesis, dissertation, documentary, movie video news TV program film interview police law Proposition 35 Taken non profit forced sex rape charities Somaly Mam
The following is a Truth-out article by Anne Elizabeth Moore about Somaly Mam. How Somaly Mam (the Cambodian anti-sex trafficking activist) is still lying about sex trafficking and making lots of money off of her lies.
This just goes to show how people in the Anti-sex trafficking organizations, governments, politicians, celebrities, etc. are willing to support lying, deceit, fraud, and the stealing of donations and government grant money to try to convince the public about the false belief that all women that have sex with men are forced into it against their will.
The link to the full article is below. Here is a brief summary:
“To date, none of the investigations that suggest Somaly Mam had willfully invented facts have been properly explained away or refuted. In fact, although the Marie Claire article was touted by two different PR teams suggesting it would serve as the first of many truth-revealing chats with the self-proclaimed former sex slave, many reporters never received responses to interview requests. One of the few interviews Mam did do, with Global Dispatches reporter Mark Goldberg, didn’t go well. Somaly Mam told Goldberg repeatedly that she wasn’t bothered by the allegations against her, yet as development reporter Tom Murphy pointed out on Twitter, she was actively participating in the PR push to “correct” them. Even worse, Mam misrepresented the clientele of AFESIP, claiming vaguely that “most of the girls are from trafficking.” In fact, an independent audit of the NGO in January 2014 found that only 49 percent of the 674 women and girls in residence between 2008 and 2012 could be considered “trafficked” under any definition of the term. Many were consensual adult sex workers; others were simply deemed “at risk” of trafficking (a description the report does not distinguish from other women living in poverty.)
Today, despite Somaly Mam’s continued vagaries, insinuations, mischaracterizations and outright lies, her career as spokesperson for the American Rescue Industry seems poised for a full recovery. Many may balk at the idea that her falsehoods will still generate millions, hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in donations toward murky ends. Some will write it off as Standard International Aid Procedure.
Others, however, know that in the world of anti-trafficking organizations, money and lies are deeply – perhaps inextricably – tied. The false claims, forwarded as fact, are big. So is the money that’s spent and received in the service of those claims – more than half a billion dollars in recent years. That we know of.
Shedding Light and Casting Shadows
Considering their common mythical enemy – the nameless and faceless men portrayed in TV dramas who trade in nubile human girl stock – one would hope anti-trafficking organizations would unite in an effort to be less shady. With names reliant on metaphors of recovery, light and sanctuary, anti-trafficking groups project an image of transparency. Yet these groups have shown a remarkable lack of fiscal accountability and organizational consistency, often even eschewing an open acknowledgement of board members, professional affiliates and funding relationships. The problems with this evasion go beyond ethical considerations: A certain level of budgetary disclosure, for example, is a legal requirement for tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organizations. Yet anti-trafficking groups fold, move, restructure and reappear under new names with alarming frequency, making them almost as difficult to track as their supposed foes.”
Below is a recent article from Joe Bilello which helps to explain part of the reason why there is a sex trafficking myth of millions of innocent young girls being forced raped prostitutes. While we don’t deny that prostitutes exist – We do have a problem with the false belief with ALL of them being forced, raped, against their will. The fact is that prostitutes go out of their way, to enter this life style choice for a variety of reasons that are beneficial to them and their family. The statistics about sex trafficking are also false – The fact is there is a tiny number of prostitutes that are trafficked against their will. In fact, sex trafficking is very rare.
Prostitution itself is also not as large a problem as the myth suggests, and is not always harmful to the prostitute – as the myth suggests. Do prostitutes have problems sometimes? – sure, as with any other job. No job is problem free. No job and no way of making money is perfect. However, the truth that willing females enter and stay in prostitution of their own free will is not politically correct. Therefore lies about prostitution must be made up to fit the politically correct narrative.
Even though Joe does not mention sex trafficking directly in his article – the same forces that permit the other myths, or exaggerations also permit the “sex trafficking myth” For example, prostitution being a “hate crime against women/girls” There are many other things that also play a part in creating and keeping this sex trafficking myth which this website https://bebopper76.wordpress.com/ and here: https://humantraffickingstatistics.wordpress.com/ explains in detail in other articles.
A Mississippi man, Otis Bird was recently found hanging from a tree in the woods near his home in Port Gibson, a small town near the Mississippi River. While the investigation is still ongoing, USA Today reports that authorities have said that early autopsy results suggest it was likely a suicide.
A few months ago, a Colorado man recently detonated a poorly-designed explosive device outside of his accountant’s office after becoming disgruntled over some tax issues. No one was injured; the building sustained only minor damage. Why did this become a national story? The accountant’s office happened to be in close proximity to the Colorado Springs chapter of the NAACP. The media implication was obvious – a potential domestic terror attack on our nation’s oldest and most prestigious civil rights organization.
None of these incidents were a hoax. They were very real events, with one resulting in the tragic loss of a man’s life. However, neither incident, despite the media’s wishful thinking, was a hate crime. So what do you do when there is no hate crime? What do you do when there is no crime that can even be falsely construed as a hate crime? It’s simple: You just make it up, if you’re the mainstream media
Charlottesville, Va. authorities recently concluded an investigation and determined that no evidence was found to suggest a rape occurred at the University of Virginia in the case that was brought to the national spotlight through the now infamous Rolling Stone Magazine piece, “A Rape on Campus”. (Note-whether certain crimes like rape or incidents involving police shootings are technically classified as “hate crimes” or not, the narrative perpetrated is the same: America is still a racist, misogynistic, homophobic nation.) Following the alleged rape at UVA, two students released a self-made video thanking the alleged rape victim for telling her story. “Thank you for sparking a conversation about sexual assault”, one girl said. According to the UVA newspaper The Daily Cavalier, one of the girls proclaimed, “Even if she made up the story, things like this do happen… We’re still behind her and we still think she did something brave.”
Is this what passes for bravery these days? It is okay to ruin a young man’s life with false rape accusations because somewhere, some woman is being raped? If her story was indeed false, she would not be the villain for perpetrating a horrible rape hoax but a heroine for raising awareness of the “rape culture”? These were not merely the ramblings of a couple of naïve, young girls. Their words are indicative of a social movement that must push their agenda of victimhood, whether actual victims exist or not. With no crime there is no victim so the crime must be staged. Facts be damned. It’s the narrative, not the facts, which are important anyway.
Contrary to their intentions, a false narrative often hurts the cause for real victims. “Crying wolf” is never a good way to raise awareness for a problem. When the mainstream media, some politicians and left-wing activists claim that every incident involving people of different races is “racist”, it diminishes the legitimate fight against real racism.
What do you do when you can’t find enough people with the guts to stage a phony hate crime? You turn to the left’s next favorite form of hate – hate speech. Hate speech has been a valuable weapon of the left because while a fake hate crime requires a fake victim, hate speech can be alleged without specific victims or examples. Any group or individual can be branded a purveyor of hate speech with no evidence to support the claim at all. To the left, phony hate crime accusations are okay because they open people’s eyes to a larger problem. The same goes for false accusations of hate speech because, to the left, even if the alleged culprits didn’t say it, they were probably thinking it.
Fighting hate speech has been at the top of the agenda of the PC police for years. From college campuses, to the workplace, to social media, the battle to rid the world of hurt feelings rages on. Hate speech comes in many forms: racist hate speech, homophobic hate speech and sexist hate speech, just to name a few.
But there is one form of hate speech whose viciousness and destructive capabilities trump all other forms – falsely accusing someone of hate speech. While hateful rhetoric can harm one’s sensibilities, accusing an individual of participating in hate speech can destroy careers, tarnish reputations and even leave someone open to the threat of physical violence. Just ask any conservative who attempts to speak at a college campus.
When hoaxes are inevitably exposed, those who defend the business of hate crime hoaxes always use the same absurd excuse: The hoax is justified, perhaps even necessary if it helps spark a national debate. The Daily Cavalier editor Julia Horowitz wrote a piece in Politicoresponding to the Rolling Stone debacle in which she actually said, “to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake.” Would Julia Horowitz be okay with her husband, brother, friend or father going to prison on false rape accusations to help support “the narrative”? Why do we continue to feel sorry for people who were wrongly imprisoned for years on a murder conviction? Does it really matter that they were innocent? Someone had to raise awareness of murder in this country, right?
If the problem is so prevalent that there needs to be a national debate, shouldn’t there be plenty of legitimate examples out there? You want to spark a debate about a problem that is so scarce you have to manufacture it?
So, why do hate crime haters love fake hate crimes? For those in the victim grievance business, hate crime hoaxes are the perfect scenario. They can further their agenda of portraying their image of America and no one actually gets hurt. I suppose in some bizarre way, we are in a good place as a civil nation when hate crime hoaxes could outnumber actual hate crimes.
By Janie Har on Saturday, March 2nd, 2013 at 3:00 a.m.
Statistics about sex trafficking, especially about minors, are notoriously difficult to document. For example, this newspaper once tried to show whether Portland is the child sex trafficking hub thatelected officials and national media say it is, only to find that nobody really knew.
PolitiFact Oregon likes statistics and we like to know where they come from, especially when politicians use those statistics to shape public policy. Which is how we’ve come to Multnomah County Commissioner Diane McKeel, an east county resident who has made combating human trafficking, especially child sex trafficking,a priority.
McKeel told columnist Elizabeth Hovde, who writes for The Oregonian’s editorial page, that the average age of entry into the sex trade industry is 12 to 14. It’s not the first time McKeel has cited the statistic. In a 2010 guest column about at-risk girls, she also wrote that “studies show the average age of entry into prostitution is 12 to 14 years old.”
A statistical average between 12 and 14? Wouldn’t that mean a large number under 12? Also, was she talking about the average age of entry for all trafficked prostitutes, including adults? Or just juveniles?
She clarified in an interview that, “the issue for me is the commercial exploitation of children. The average age of entry is 12 to 14. This is about our children being bought and sold on the street.”
It’s big and fat and the number in question is on page 92, under the section “ages of first intercourse and entry into juvenile prostitution.” The age range of entry for boys “was somewhat younger than that of the girls, i.e. 11-13 years vs. 12-14 years, respectively.” We emailed Dr. Richard Estes, the lead author, to learn more about sample size and methodology.
His response was not illuminating. “Any numbers you come across, even mine, represent best estimates of the situation. Because of the secretive and hidden nature of the problem it simply is not possible to get an accurate ‘head count.’”
Another widely cited report comes from a Vancouver, Wash., based group called Shared Hope International. The2009reportstates that “research has shown that the average age of entry into prostitution and pornography is 12 to 14 years old in the United States.”
There’s no research citation, but there is a pie chart breaking down age of entry into prostitution, based on a Clark County, Nevada, survey of girls arrested for prostitution-related offenses. The 96 girls were ages 11 to 17. We did the math, and the average we got was 14.96, almost 15 years old. That’s young, but not 12 or 13.
Our email requesting clarification got no response from Shared Hope. We were stumped.
We scoured the Internet for more sources, reading abstracts and tracking down anyone who might have a clue. A criminology professor we queried wrote back saying that “good estimates are hard to find, and good data are harder yet” and wished us luck. He directed us to yet another paper, which we read, diligently.
We queried the U.S. Department of Justice. McKeel’s office provided links to testimony and a report tied to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which state the average ages as 11 to 14, or 12. But a spokeswoman at the Bureau of JusticeStatisticssaid those are not bureau numbers and that the bureau has no average age for entry into sex trafficking.
“The likelihood that it comes from a nationally representative study is very low,” wrote Kara McCarthy in an email.
Is the average age of entry into prostitution and sex trafficking between 12 to 14 years old?
“That is statistically impossible,” the professor said. “If she were to say, minor trafficking often starts between the ages of 12 and 14 across the country, that is somewhat supported.”
Roe-Sepowitz said the statistic as it applies to girls is used by many, if not all, advocacy groups; the studies on which those statistics are based date back to the 1980s. Indeed, after we spoke with her, we found a 1985 study that reports the average age as 14.
Finally, we called Multnomah County Deputy Sheriff Keith Bickford. He manages the Human Trafficking Task Force. Was he aware of an average age? Short answer: No. “You’ll hear 12, you’ll hear 14. I have yet to nail down an actual average from the people I talk to,” he said, adding that he is reading more accounts involving younger children..
We’ve galloped across the country and found that definitions are fuzzy, statistics are murky and nobody knows for sure. We’ve learned that many organizations continue to repeat the statistic that the average age of entry into juvenile prostitution is between 12 and 14 years, despite the research being old and limited.
We found a professor who said there is some research backs up the claim, and another expert who warned that sample sizes are inadequate and research limited. One of the most widely cited sources told us that any numbers, even his, are estimates.
Over the last several years, I have been trying to correct the inaccurate notion that the “average age of entry into prostitution is 13″ wherever I see it, but it is becoming increasingly overwhelming. This figure is in newspapers, official reports from City of Portland, and many websites and pamphlets claiming to confront sex trafficking (but often conflate prostitution with trafficking, and take anti-prostitution stances that are actually harmful to women). When I contact them to correct the errors, they either don’t understand what I am explaining or just plain don’t care. I’ve also been accused of being a pimp, pervert, pedophile, and other unpopular beings, simply because I challenge the falsehoods.
Here is the latest example, found on The Oregonian on July 3, 2010. Columnist Eliabeth Hovde writes:
Boys and girls are being lured or forced into what they call “the life” at younger and younger ages. […] The U.S. Justice Department believes that the average age of entry into prostitution is 13 and that 100,000 children are used for commercial sex each year in this land of the free.
Department of Justice does state this figure in its website:
Although comprehensive research to document the number of children engaged in prostitution in the United States is lacking, it is estimated that about 293,000 American youth are currently at risk of becoming victims of commercial sexual exploitation. Richard J. Estes and Neil Alan Weiner, Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the U.S, Canada and Mexico, University of Pennsylvania, Executive Summary at 11-12 (2001)
The age range of entry into prostitution for the boys, including gay and transgender boys, was somewhat younger than that of the girls, i.e., 11-13 years vs. 12-14 years, respectively.
But as the title suggests, this study only surveys minors (“children”), which means it does not include anyone who entered into prostitution at age 18 or over, or those who entered as a minor but has since aged out. Imagine conducting a research on those who died as minors: the average age of death would be somewhere near 10-12, but it would be ridiculous to claim that the average life expectancy for the general population is 10-12. Similarly, the “average age of entry” among youth who were studied does not tell us anything about the actual average age of entry for everyone who is in or has been in prostitution.
That’s not all. For the sake of discussion, let’s pretend that in a small town, six minors enter into prostitution each year, one individual each for ages 12-17. That means that there is one 12 year old, one 13 year old, one 14 year old, and so on. The average age of entry in this hypothetical town is the average of these six individuals, which is (12+13+14+15+16+17)/6 = 14.5.
But when researchers arrive in this town, they don’t just survey these six minors: they will also survey others who have started prostitution in the years past. So for any given year when the research is conducted, there are one 12 year old (who entered at 12), two 13 year olds (entered at 12 and 13), three 14 year olds (entered at 12, 13, and 14), and so on. The average among all of these youth will be: (12+(12+13)+(12+13+14)+(12+13+14+15)+(12+13+14+15+16)+(12+13+14+15+16+17))/21 = 13.7–which is almost one year younger than the actual average age of entry.
This discrepancy is caused by limiting the research subject to minors. Those who entered into prostitution at age 12 has six years in which he or she might be surveyed (at ages 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17), while those who entered at 17 has only one year, which artificially inflates the proportion of research participants who entered early. In short, we cannot know the actual “average age of entry” by simply averaging the age of entry reported by research participants.
This chart is based on Shared Hope International’s 10-city study on minor sex trafficking. In the same page where this chart appears, Shared Hope founder Linda Smith states “The average age that a pimp recruits a girl into prostitution is 12 to 14 years old.” But interestingly, the chart does not support this statement: the average of all responses represented in the chart/table is 14.97, which is much higher than Smith’s “12 to 14″ figure. Plus, simply averaging all the responses is not enough, for the reason I pointed out above. So when we adjust the numbers to compensate for the over-representation of those who entered early, the re-calculated “average of entry” turns out to be almost 16 (15.91).
This calculation is rudimentary and at best an approximation, since we don’t have access to the complete data or truly representative sample. But I suspect that it is much closer to reality than 13, which is what journalists, politicians, and many anti-trafficking activists claim.
There is also an element of common sense here. Assuming normal distribution (bell curve), the average of 13 implies that for every 20 year olds entering prostitution, there are equal number of 6 year olds doing the same. That, common sense should say, cannot possibly be true. The alternative is that the distribution isn’t normally distributed, but heavily clustered around 10-12 year olds to balance everyone who enters into prostitution 16 or older. This again is implausible, as we simply do not find that many 10-12 year olds in prostitution, at least in the United States. The only logical conclusion is that the average age is not anywhere near 13, but is much closer to 18.
That doesn’t diminish the fact that some very young children are victimized, and we should do something about it. But it is not trivial if the average age of entry is 13 or 16 or even 18, because it drastically changes what social policies we must enact to combat forced prostitution and trafficking. I feel that many journalists, politicians, and anti-trafficking activists use the lower figure merely for the shock value, to arouse strong emotional reaction toward the issue, but they are acting irresponsibly when they distort reality. We need to understand reality as they are and craft rational and sensible responses to the problem, rather than indulging ourselves in panicked frenzy.
What happens if you are a man falsely accused of rape?
1. You spend the rest of your life in prison? – It’s been done
2. You are beaten to death by a angry mob – It’s been done
3. Here is another thing that can happen to a man:
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ Wall St Journal
Imagine the following situation: You’re a 76-year-old man, happily married for nearly 30 years, with three children and two grandchildren. You’ve recently retired after 50 years of teaching at Harvard Law School. You have an unblemished personal record, though your legal and political views are controversial. You wake up on the day before New Year’s Eve to learn that two lawyers have filed a legal document that, in passing, asserts that 15 years ago you had sex on numerous occasions and in numerous locations with an underage female.
The accusation doesn’t mention the alleged victim’s name—she’s referred to as Jane Doe #3, and the court document includes no affidavit by her. But her name doesn’t really matter, because you have never had sex with anyone other than your wife during the relevant time period. The accusations against you are totally false, and you can prove it.
Well, that is my situation: I’m the one who has been falsely accused. But let’s continue to imagine it was you:
Your first instinct is to call your lawyer and have him file a denial to the court in which the accusation was made. But your lawyer informs you that you can’t do that because you’re not a party to the lawsuit (against the United States government seeking to vacate the plea bargain your client struck seven years earlier) and have no standing to file any papers.
Not to worry, you imagine, because the lawyers who accused you of these heinous crimes will certainly have to prove them in court, which they will be unable to do, because they’re not true.
No, your lawyer tells you. They didn’t ask for a hearing or any other opportunity to prove the truth of what they alleged. So the accusation will remain on the public record without anyone having to prove it or you having any opportunity to disprove it.
Well, at least you can sue for defamation the two lawyers and the woman who made the false charges. No, you can’t, your lawyer tells you. They leveled the accusation in a court document, which protects them against the defamation lawsuit as a result of the so-called litigation privilege.
How did the accusation get from a court filing in an obscure courthouse in Florida to the first page of many newspapers and the first item on many television broadcasts? Obviously, it was leaked; who is going to be checking court filings the day before New Year’s Eve. But the mere leak of a publicly filed court document cannot lead to a legal claim, your lawyer tells you.
You can’t just let the false story spread without responding. Moreover, you have documentary proof that you could not have been in the places and at the time Jane Doe #3 said she had sex with you. Can you at least respond in the media? Not without some risk of being sued for defamation, your lawyer tells you.
You have no choice but to take that risk, so you make your denials and counteraccusations on live television. You challenge the two lawyers who filed the court document to repeat the false charges in the media, so you can sue them. They remain silent. You challenge the woman, now 31-years-old, to bring rape charges against you and you offer to waive any statute of limitations, because the filing of a false rape charge is itself a serious crime—though it is rarely prosecuted. She doesn’t accept your challenge.
And then, sure enough, the lawyers who made the false accusation— Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell —sue you for defaming them—though they claim you can’t sue them for falsely accusing you of a crime.
Welcome to the Kafkaesque world of American justice. But Kafka was writing fiction when he described the ordeal faced by Josef K in his famous novel, “The Trial.” What I have described is real. It is happening to me right now. And if it can happen to me, it can happen to anyone.
I now stand accused of crimes I did not commit, by an unnamed woman who I don’t know and never met. I am also being sued for defaming my accusers. I still have no opportunity to respond in court to the false charges, though I am now seeking to intervene in the lawsuit in which the accusation was filed. I have submitted a sworn statement denying the accusations with great specificity. The court has not yet decided whether to accept my motion.
I feel like a victim of a drive-by shooting or the object of scribbled graffiti on the wall of a bathroom stall. I may never have the opportunity to prove my innocence, or to have my accusers prove the false charges, in any court of law. But because I am relatively well known—a double-edge sword in these situations—I can at least fight back in the court of public opinion, though at the very high cost—in legal fees, loss of insurance coverage and the possibility of a large monetary judgment against me.
Imagine the same thing happening to a person who did not have the resources to fight back.
There is a gaping hole in our legal system that allows lawyers to bring irrelevant accusations against innocent nonparties in court papers that insulate them from any consequences, and to deny the falsely accused any opportunity to respond.
The law must be changed to shatter this hall of mirrors I face and others might. There must be consequences for those who file accusations with no offer to prove them and no legal responsibility if they are categorically—and disprovably—false.
I will not rest until this gaping hole is filled with reasonable safeguards, so that what is happening to me can never happen to another innocent person.
On Tuesday, the Department of Education said Harvard Law School’s current and past harassment policies and procedures didn’t comply with Title IX requirements, which bar gender discrimination at schools receiving federal financial aid.
The announcement marked the resolution a probe by the department’s Office for Civil Rights, which is investigating campus sexual-assault issues at dozens of schools, including Harvard’s undergraduate college.
While Harvard pledged to make changes, Elizabeth Bartholet, a veteran law professor at Harvard Law who teaches civil rights and family law, called the federal government’s recent campaign against colleges “madness” and said history would prove it wrong on the law. (Prof. Bartholet has been an outspoken opponent of policies that she and other law professors say strip students accused of sexual assault of their due-process rights.)
In an email to Law Blog on Wednesday, she wrote:
The federal government’s decision that Harvard Law School violated Title IX represents nothing more than the government’s flawed view of Title IX law. The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, which issued the decision, is not the ultimate decision-maker on law. The courts are responsible for interpreting the law. And I trust that the courts will eventually reject the federal government’s current views. The courts’ decisions to date, including the U.S. Supreme Court, show a much more balanced approach to sexual harassment, one which recognizes the importance of vindicating the rights of those victimized by wrongful sexual misconduct, while at the same time protecting the rights of those wrongfully accused, and protecting the rights of individual autonomy in romantic relationships.
Prof. Bartholet said that Harvard University failed to challenge the government, and that other schools throughout the country need to show leadership by resisting the Department of Education’s position.
“I believe that history will demonstrate the federal government’s position to be wrong, that our society will look back on this time as a moment of madness, and that Harvard University will be deeply shamed at the role it played in simply caving to the government’s position,” she wrote.
A spokesman for the Department of Education declined to comment. Neither Harvard University nor Harvard Law School had an immediate comment.
Yes means NO! – when it comes to men having sex with women – According to the politically correct believers of rape culture, all sex with men is rape.
There are many feminist women’s groups who lobby the government and make the government and Law enforcement believe that all men are evil and all women are angels that can do no wrong when it comes to sex. They openly believe and promote that ALL men are rapists or future rapists. The prejudice and sexist hating of men is politically correct and encouraged in countries like America and Great Briton. Which they then force other countries to make anti-male laws or face economic or military sanctions. This creates a terrible environment for men since hating men because they are men is considered the right thing to do.
They believe that all women should be treated like children in regards to sex. They feel that it is impossible for a woman to give consent to sex with a man. Therefore all sex with a man is considered rape. Any women who tells them that they gave consent to sex with a man they feel must be mentally insane and needs mental help. Because what women in their right mind would ever consent to having sex with a man?
Yes means NO! The feminist women’s groups on college campus, in law enforcement, government in America believe that when a woman says yes to sex –she really means no. No matter what the woman says or does the answer to sex is always –NO! YES means NO! No means NO, maybe means NO, silence means NO. If she gets sexy and physical with a man, and says she wants sex, the man must realize the answer is still NO! and walk away. Yes means NO!
In response to the total implosion of Rolling Stone’s preposterous story about a fraternity gang-rape at the University of Virginia, the media have reverted to their Soviet-style reporting. They’re not even saying: We’re choosing not to talk about UVA because it’s a side show. It’s more like: UVA? That’s a school? Not only did the UVA gang rape turn out to be a hoax, but then President Obama’s own Department of Justice completed a six-year study on college rape, and it turns out that instead of 1-in-5 college coeds being raped, the figure is 0.03-in-5. Less than 1 percent of college students are the victim of a sexual assault — 0.6 percent to be exact — not to be confused with the 20 percent, or “one in five,” claimed by feminists and President Obama. But neither the DOJ report, nor the UVA rape hoax have dissuaded Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Claire McCaskill from pushing their idea that the nation is in the grip of a college rape epidemic. This week, Gillibrand dismissed the UVA outrage, saying, “Clearly, we don’t know the facts of what did or did not happen in this case.” Actually, we know quite well what happened in this case. A disturbed young woman invented a fake boyfriend and a fake gang-rape to get attention, and an incompetent journalist acted as her transcriber. It was a total hoax — just like the Duke lacrosse case, the Jamie Leigh Jones case, the Tawana Brawley case, and every other claim of white men committing gang-rape. Gillibrand and McCaskill: Perhaps the accusations against Dreyfus were overblown, but that doesn’t mean there’s not an epidemic of Jews selling secrets to the Germans! We are truly in the middle of a rape epidemic: an epidemic of women falsely claiming to have been raped. It’s said that “women never lie about rape!” But the evidence shows that women lie about rape all the time -– for attention, for revenge and for an alibi. All serious studies of the matter suggest that at least 40 percent of rape claims are false. The U.S. Air Force, for example, examined more than a thousand rape allegations on military bases over the course of four years and concluded that 46 percent were false. In 27 percent of the cases, the accuser recanted. A large study of rape allegations over nine years in a small Midwestern city, by Eugene J. Kanin of Purdue University, found that 41 percent of the rape claims were false. To put it in terms Kirsten Gillibrand would understand, two in five women claiming to have been raped are lying. So why are we always being hectored: Only 2 percent of rape allegations are false! That oft-cited number comes from Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 book, “Against Our Will” — which sourced the claim to a mimeograph of a speech by a state court judge, who made a passing remark about a New York police precinct with an all-female rape squad. Nothing more is known about whether this was an actual study, and if so, what was examined, how the information was collected or the actual results. Nor can any trace of the speech, the precinct or the data be found. In Women’s Studies classes, that figure is called a “home run.” That’s why the feminists are so anxious to move on from the UVA nonsense rape story. They want to move on now so they can come back to it later, when everyone’s forgotten, and start citing UVA as their No. 1 example of the fraternity gang-rape culture. It’s crucial that we get a letter in the file that says, “This was total B.S.” Otherwise, the UVA hoax will remain in an open file, marked “unresolved.” All we’re hearing now is, Enough! Enough! Don’t be a bad winner. All this coverage is putting Jackie in a precarious emotional state. If you were a gentleman, you would drop the subject. Then in three months, they’ll be bringing up the UVA gang rape as proof of a college rape epidemic. In six months, the case will show up in feminist textbooks. Wait a minute! That was a hoax! We didn’t agree it was a hoax. We conceded nothing. The Duke lacrosse case proves that. In an unusual move, after that gang-rape turned out to be yet another hoax, the players refused to accept the case being dismissed for “insufficient evidence,” which is how prosecutors usually drop charges. They insisted on being declared “innocent.” This, the attorney general did. He also denounced the prosecutor, Mike Nifong, and saw that he was disbarred. A few years went by, and then, this year, some douchebag wrote a book that claims “something happened” in the Duke case between the players and the stripper (who has since been convicted of murder). The book got a rave review from The New York Times. With feminists, either you lose or the game was rained out. So before anyone moves on from UVA, we need to get it in writing that this case was a hoax. Jackie’s got to apologize to the fraternity; UVA’s president has to not only apologize, but pay restitution to the Greek system for shutting it down for an entire semester; and Rolling Stone authoress Sabrina Rubin Erdely has got to swear that she will never, ever write again. She cannot be an “investigative journalist.” She cannot even write movie reviews. Remember, Sabrina: No means no. Ann Coulter is a syndicated columnist. Contact her through her website at http://www.anncoulter.com.