Post: #1

After taking the Red Pill, it amazes me how femnazis look at the evidence for false rape.

Let's look at one blog posted just a few days ago in the femnazi blogosphere.

She comes up with five bullet points about why studies showing a high percentage of false rape accusations are false (Just glancing at the list, this lady does not understand basic statistics). Once she tries to discredit the data she does not like, she then turns around and, without the least bit of skepticism, accepts that "experts tend to agree on a range of 2-8% for false accusations".

Feminist thinking gone wild: If a data point does not agree with their worldview, make five points which do not affect the studies in a pathetic attempt to discredit the data. If the data point agrees, accept it without question.

Another article, also written by a female (but not a femnazi one), points out that:

Quote:The two percent figure appears without citation or with only a vague attribution to "FBI" sources. Although the figure shows up in legislation such as the Violence Against Women Act, legal scholar Michelle Anderson of Villanova University Law School reported in 2004, "no study has ever been published which sets forth an evidentiary basis for the two percent false rape complaint thesis."

Sheesh!

Edit Formatting fix.

Second edit Lots of statistics from a men's right activist: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/200...stics.html

Post: #2

To continue my thread on feminism being downright dishonest about false rape accusations, here are some examples of the Wikipedia editors performing biased edits, either quoting articles out of context or downright suppressing articles which disagree with their "Only 2% of rape accusations are false" mantra.

The hamster at work in the Wikipedia

Sloppy and biased editing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

First, suppression of McDowell (1985):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?titl...=485757329
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?titl...=485638431
  

Here are two different editors removing any mention of the McDowell 1985 study in the Wikipedia.

The reason the femnazi Wikipedia editors are suppressing the McDowell article is obvious: It puts in to question the oft-quoted feminist bullshit quote of 2% of rape accusations being false. The study, depending on who summarizes it, shows between 14% and 27% of rape accusations being false.

Edit The hamster logic justifying suppressing the McDowell article is that they question whether the article really exists. Here's the hamster logic in action: "Forensic Science Digest is so obscure that there are no online archives, it is not listed in Google Scholar, and the only Google hits for the name of the publication are found in "women are lying about rape" websites that recycle this one article" Sorry for this hamster, but, you know The journal in question really does exist.

It’s ironic that they are suppressing the McDowell study because they, without question, add another quote from Bruce Gross in an article which extensively talks about the McDowell study. Here’s the feminist bullshit hamster in action:

Actual quote:

Quote:Small sample sizes and non-representative samples preclude generalizability. Regardless, the mere number of publicized incidents of false accusations of rape over the last two decades indicates not only a need for further investigation into the problem, but a better understanding of how to identify such cases.

Wikipedia version of quote:

Quote:Bruce Gross writes in the Forensic Examiner that Kanin's study [which shows 41% of rape accusation as being false] is an example of the limitations of existing studies on false rape accusations. "Small sample sizes and non-representative samples preclude generalizability."

Observe the quoting out of context.

Also, observe the undue weight given to David Lisak’s criticisms of the Kanin study (which is longer than the section devoted to the study) in the Wikipedia article. I’ve read a couple of Lisak’s articles...he obviously has a "white knight" agenda.

TL;DR The most active Wikipedia editors on the Wikipedia article about false rape accusations, in violation of Wikipedia policy and common sense, suppress information which hurts their agenda of supporting very questionably low figures for false rape accusation.

Post: #3

I've seen something along these lines on dailymail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...stice.html

Post: #4

Since threads about false rape statistics keep coming up, I just link to this thread when someone posts about false rape accusations, especially if anyone actually gives that 2% number femnazis love to parrot.

Here are the two studies I look at to get the 20-40% figure:

1) There was Air Force study by Charles McDowell of over 1,000 rape complaints made on Air Force bases from 1980 to 1984 that found that 45% of allegations were false. (See above for my responses to femnazi attempts to discredit this study)

2) Kanin (1994) found 41% of rape claims were false. This is a very interesting study, because they hooked up anyone who claimed rape to a lie detector. (Again, see above for femnazi attempts to discredit the study)

I give radical femnazis the benefit of the doubt and divide the number by two to get the 20% number I quote.

Post: #5

(05-25-2013 06:22 PM)placer Wrote:  Here are two different editors removing any mention of the McDowell 1985 study in the Wikipedia. ...they are suppressing the McDowell study

... they ... quote from Bruce Gross in ... the Forensic Examiner ...

I wrote about this.
/thread-21157.html

McDowell's original study was never published, and his 1985 Forensic Science Digest paper merely quotes numbers from his unpublished study, without details. The FBI library in Quantico has the only available copy of Forensic Science Digest.

The Forensic Examiner is a "[scientific organization] in a spare bedroom of [the editor's] home" which doesn't even list their editorial advisory board! Bruce Gross's article claims a lot of stuff that does not appear in McDowell's published work. Maybe Gross got the details from unpublished sources and improperly cited McDowell's 1985 article. Maybe he was lazy and copied from another source without ever reading McDowell at all. Or maybe he fabricated. I e-mailed Gross from my credible university account, and he didn't respond. He is full of shit.

The internet false rape community is currently an echo chamber that dishonestly cites sources that do not support their claims.

Post: #6

(07-19-2013 03:34 PM)Divorco Wrote:  The internet false rape community is currently an echo chamber that dishonestly cites sources that do not support their claims.

Are you trolling? I remember that other thread you posted and the gist I got from that was that you think false rape accusations are not as high as people on this site believe?

Post: #7

Thanks for the link. It's an interesting discussion.

Quote: I e-mailed Gross from my credible university account, and he didn't respond. He is full of shit.

This is what I see:



The issue with the Wikipedia article is not whether Gross "is full of shit", to use your language. They have absolutely no problem with quoting him to support their feminist hamster logic position that anyone who claims over 2% false rapes is wrong. They only have an issue with him when he goes against the 2% figure.

They want to have their cake and eat it. Gross is a reliable source when he indirectly supports the 2% false rape figure. Gross suddenly becomes "full of shit" when he argues for higher false rape percentages.

Post: #8

The sooner you guys realize women don't use reason or logic the sooner you will learn to manage them.

Post: #9

(07-19-2013 03:41 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(07-19-2013 03:34 PM)Divorco Wrote:  The internet false rape community is currently an echo chamber that dishonestly cites sources that do not support their claims.

Are you trolling?

No. I saw the Wikipedia censorship and thought feminists were suppressing research. Using university connections, I found original published sources, even corresponded with McDowell's FBI coauthor. Those Mens Rights websites have not read McDowell's articles. Instead they just parrot information that is not supported by the sources they cite. I felt really betrayed.

(07-19-2013 03:41 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  you think false rape accusations are not as high as people on this site believe?

Fortunately, many false allegations fail to charge a specific individual. ... a formal proceeding or prosecution that might expose the truth would not serve the woman’s interest. Thus in many cases, false allegations do not involve accusations.
http://www.returnofkings.com/9047/game-c...ccusations

Many women tell friends that a consensual lover raped them. And some women tell police an unknown stranger abducted them in an unknown location. These women get sympathy and attention. But it is much rarer for them to press actual criminal charges that might expose their lies.

Post: #10

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/201...-rape.html

Sums up how we cannot know what percentage of rape claims are false based on often touted feminist statistic. The Liask study "confirms" a 5.9% of false rape allegations and convinces feminists not to worry about victims of false rape accusation, because it's "not a significant enough portion" to deem a problem.

An excerpt from the article-

Quote:Here's the criteria Lisak supposedly used: "The determination that a report of sexual assault is false can be made only if the evidence establishes that no crime was committed or attempted. This determination can be made only after a thorough investigation. This should not be confused with an investigation that fails to prove a sexual assault occurred. In that case the investigation would be labeled unsubstantiated. The determination that a report is false must be supported by evidence that the assault did not happen."

How did the claims break down? Pay attention: 5.9%, were false reports; 44% resulted in no disciplinary action; 35.3% resulted in the case proceeding; and the file in about 14% was too insufficient to code.

First, I can't tell what happened with any of the claims in the 35.3% category that "resulted in the case proceeding." What does that tell us about whether the claims were true or false? Absolutely nothing, of course.

Second, from Millar's blog report, I have no idea if Lisak arrived at a percentage of rape claims he determined were actual rapes.

Apparently not, but that doesn't stop Millar from making the following pronouncement: "False reports sometimes happen. False reports are a single-digit percentage of the total reports . . . ."

The only intellectually honest position one can take on the matter in accordance with this published study is that false rape accusations happen a minimum 5.9% of the time. We have no idea if it happens beyond that, but it would be a fairly safe assumption that not 94.1% of rape accusations are honest when only 35.3% of them even proceeded to trial.

Post: #11

(07-21-2013 12:28 PM)Divorco Wrote:  

(07-19-2013 03:41 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(07-19-2013 03:34 PM)Divorco Wrote:  The internet false rape community is currently an echo chamber that dishonestly cites sources that do not support their claims.

Are you trolling?

No. I saw the Wikipedia censorship and thought feminists were suppressing research. Using university connections, I found original published sources, even corresponded with McDowell's FBI coauthor. Those Mens Rights websites have not read McDowell's articles. Instead they just parrot information that is not supported by the sources they cite. I felt really betrayed.

(07-19-2013 03:41 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  you think false rape accusations are not as high as people on this site believe?

Fortunately, many false allegations fail to charge a specific individual. ... a formal proceeding or prosecution that might expose the truth would not serve the woman’s interest. Thus in many cases, false allegations do not involve accusations.
http://www.returnofkings.com/9047/game-c...ccusations

Many women tell friends that a consensual lover raped them. And some women tell police an unknown stranger abducted them in an unknown location. These women get sympathy and attention. But it is much rarer for them to press actual criminal charges that might expose their lies.

As a statistician I solute you actually investigating the sources of everything.

Post: #12

Divorcio claims that woman who have casual sex a man won't make false rape accusations against their sex partner. Actually, they will. What usually happens is that the woman has a boyfriend/husband, has sex with another man (or men), and, when caught, cries rape.

For example:

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/p/l...-rape.html

/thread-12647-...#pid204491

I have had friends this exact situation has happened to.


Lisle is being downright dishonest when he claims that, since 6% of rape charges are known to be false, only 6% of rape charges are false. There is a huge error bar that he's ignoring: Assuming any case brought to trial was a real rape (I'm being generous here), he has a huge 6%-65% error bar for the number of rape charges that are false. There's a huge gray area in Lisle's numbers where Kanin's 41% figure (which uses a better methodology to reduce the error bar: Anyone who claimed rape was hooked up to a lie detector) nicely fits.

The reason I do not trust any numbers more recent than Kanin's is because there is just too much of a gray area with newer studies. There are just no recent studies hooking up women claiming rape to lie detectors to see if they're telling the truth.

Post: #13

(07-21-2013 06:36 PM)Tytalus Wrote:  As a statistician I solute you actually investigating the sources of everything.

Thanks, I appreciate the salute from a fellow RVF member.

(07-21-2013 09:04 PM)placer Wrote:  http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/p/l...-rape.html

/thread-12647-...#pid204491

I have had friends this exact situation has happened to.

Interesting you mention two cases Hofstra and Vorkuta (mentioned in my ReturnOfKings article) that involve gang bangs where the woman lies to deny her sluttiness. Ironically a consensual gang bang protects you with multiple corroborating witnesses/defendants. It's almost like we need a Roosh Forum buddy system for one-night-stands.

Post: #14

@Divorcio I would love to have a copy of that McDowell study, if you could send it to me via PM.


Today's big news about rape is the decision by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights to file a complaint against the private University of Southern California's handling of a rape case. For example, The Huffington Post's article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22...ostpopular

The headline: "USC Student: Police Said I Wasn't Raped Because He Didn't Orgasm".

So, what happened? I haven't heard the guy's side, but the alleged rape victim describes her version of what happened that night at http://www.xojane.com/issues/tucker-reed...ist-at-usc

To wit, the potential rape victim claims that:

• She goes to the party where she meets the alleged rapist. They both have been drinking heavily.
• They dance at the party and he starts groping her on the dance floor. She tells him he wants to leave. They left together without any protestation from her. Round here, when a woman leaves with a man at a party after being groped to go somewhere more private, we call it a strong, possibly DTF-level, IOI. (DTF: Dying to Fuck. IOI: Indication of Interest)
• She takes him to her place. The logistics of the situation are such that none of her roommates are there so they are alone in the apartment together.
• She starts making out with him on the couch. Again, as far as this guy knows, this is just standard escalation.
• She then takes him to her room. The escalation is increasing. I think anyone on this forum in the same situation would consider this a standard DTF "fools mate" lay.
• She gets naked on her bed in front of him. There is no indication whatsoever that he forced her clothes off.
• At this point, she says she does not want to have sex. To me, I can see why this guy just thought she was giving him standard ASD (anti-slut defense) LMR (last minute resistance).
• He has sex with her anyway.
  

Now, for the purposes of this discussion, I will assume the lady is being completely honest up to this point. I do not think it's a situation where "it wasn't rape because he didn't orgasm" -- and I do not think Huffington post is being honest about the context of what the policeman said.

It's a situation where a girl takes a guy home and consents -- by her own admission -- to kissing him, taking him to her bedroom, and getting naked in front of him. The only possible criminal acts performed were done behind closed doors with no witnesses present.

I can see why no police officer or prosecutor would want to touch this case. Whether or not he did something illegal to her that night -- and some reports are that she only said "no" after penetration; he then immediately stopped -- there's really no way to convince a jury of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had non-consensual relations with her.

I find it disgusting how the Huffington downright manipulated the facts to incite feminist rage and get more hits for their poorly written news story. Yellow journalism at its finest.

Post: #15

(07-24-2013 03:12 PM)placer Wrote:  Whether or not he did something illegal to her that night -- and some reports are that she only said "no" after penetration; he then immediately stopped -- there's really no way to convince a jury of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" that he had relations with her against her consent.

What kind of fucking game is this? Was she setting him up for rape? By saying no after he penetrated and then if he thrust one more time it would be rape because she said no?

Look, rapes occur, but this stuff is just bullshit. How does anyone with a conscience do shit like this? This is what happens when we live in a country of non-stop victim encouraging and fuck responsibility.

Post: #16

(07-24-2013 03:12 PM)placer Wrote:  @Divorcio I would love to have a copy of that McDowell study, if you could send it to me via PM.

McDowell is widely cited by Men's Rights Advocates on the internet because he led an intensive investigation for the Air Force which found a high rate of false accusations. This study potentially intimidated victims by hooking them up to lie detectors. But we can't criticize it because McDowell's 1983 working paper was never published.

McDowell wrote about indicators of false rape in 1985 Forensic Science Digest. As far as I can tell, this is an internal F.B.I. publication with virtually no circulation and only one copy in the F.B.I. library in Quantico. This is what Men's Rights Advocate usually cite, and I got a copy from interlibrary loan. McDowell referenced his earlier study and the only pertinent thing he wrote was:

To better understand the dynamics of false rape allegations, the results of 556 rape investigations were carefully reviewed (21). Of this total, 220 were determined to have represented rape and 80 represented verifed false allegations (the remaining 256 could not be conclusively verified as rapes, although they were thoroughly investigated and are currently carried as unsolved sex offenses). Consequently, about 27% of the claims were found to have been false.

I also read McDowell's interviews in 1985 Chicago Lawyer, where he updated numbers
http://www.fathersmanifesto.net/mcdowell.htm
and 1989 Police Chief magazine, where he claimed to be doing further studies. These are pretty obscure - Chicago Lawyer doesn't even keep back issues (I got the text from Cathleen Cromwell Webb's book Forgive Me). McDowell wrote a chapter about indicators of false rape with F.B.I. agent Roy Hibler in the first edition of Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation, which is no longer in print. Hibler told me McDowell is no longer involved in this issue.

Then Bruce Gross cited McDowell's 1985 Forensic Science Digest paper in the The Forensic Examiner.
http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/
But Gross mistakenly substitutes the updated 1985 Chicago Lawyer numbers. I don't know where he got the other details and he didn't respond to my e-mail from a university account. Remember, this publication was run out of the editor's bedroom, and the website doesn't even list the editorial board.

So that's it. I diligently got everything McDowell published, in obscure, non-circulating, out-of-print publications by authors who don't respond to e-mails. The Men's Rights Advocates cite this stuff, but have never read it. I suspect some of the details came from McDowell's original working paper; I don't have a copy (but could probably get it). Men's Rights advocates keep passing along the same information like a game of telephone, without correct citations. If this is the best they can do, then I'm done with them.

Post: #17

Quote:This study potentially intimidated victims by hooking them up to lie detectors.

I think the reason MRAs focus so much on Kanin an McDowell is because there are the only two studies where rape accusers are hooked up to lie detectors. The problem with all of the other reports is that there is this really, really huge error bar -- it's his word against her word (the example I quote above, for example, has a 6-65% error bar).

Since you gave us the entire relevant part of McDowell's numbers, which appear to come from his never-finished 1983 survey, and said survey did use lie detectors, we have a 15-60% error bar for amount of false rape claims. If every single one of those 256 unsolved cases was a real rape, only 15% of rape claims were false. If all of the unsolved cases were false claims, 60% of rape claims are false.

There may be issues with both studies, but since there are ethical issues with hooking up each and every woman that claims rape to a lie detector, we can't find newer studies doing that. Until we find an ethical way to find out what happened behind closed doors with no witnesses present, the McDowell (15-60%) and Kanin (40%) numbers are the best figures we have for false rape percentages.

I don't disagree that Gross may not be a reliable source, but it very strongly violates Wiki's neutral point of view to only quote him when he supports one side's argument, then turn around and consider him unreliable when he supports the other argument.

Post: #18

(07-25-2013 11:51 AM)placer Wrote:  Kanin and McDowell ... are the only two studies where rape accusers are hooked up to lie detectors.

Yeah, Wikipedia sucks. It is absurd that everybody edited the article without anybody reading the McDowell reference. Obviously they don't care about the truth and have political motivations instead. MRA's cite Kanin and McDowell because they found a high rate of false accusations (using lie detectors).

Again, McDowell never published his study. Kanin didn't really study anything, he just tabulated numbers from a small, anonymous police department. He effectively relied on the integrity and judgement of police offers who had a conflicting incentive to clear cases.

Also, in what other crime is it remotely appropriate to force victims to take a lie detector test? We have a rogue Air Force investigator and Barney Fife deputies who hook victims to lie detectors until they recant. This is just absurd.

False accusation is a serious issue, even if the rate is "only" 5%-10%. I don't want to undermine seriousness and credibility by associating with flaky ignorant MRA's or relying on such awful studies.

Post: #19

Quote:in what other crime is it remotely appropriate to force victims to take a lie detector test?

Name any other crime where the criminality of the act depends on the victim's frame of mind.

The legality of a man having sex with a woman depends on whether the woman, at the time she is having sex with the man, believes she is consenting to the sex.

Post: #20

(07-25-2013 10:05 PM)placer Wrote:  

Quote:in what other crime is it remotely appropriate to force victims to take a lie detector test?

Name any other crime where the criminality of the act depends on the victim's frame of mind.

Theft, trespass, or kidnapping. By definition, assault requires the victim to have fear or apprehension. Most crime requires a victim, and a victim must have an unwilling frame of mind.

My broader point is that the Kanin study is bad, and good studies are amost impossible to do. It is also hard to extrapolate results from one environment (Air Force) to another (nightclub after-party).

Interestingly, women jurors are generally tougher on rape victims than men. They realize that victims make many choices, like drinking or going to a guy's place, and it is quite easy for women to protect themselves from these situations without using the blunts instruments of law.

Post: #21

The victim doesn't decide if something is theirs or not with robbery cases. No one trespasses thinking they are on public land -- indeed, the law is set up that you need to clearly mark land as being private with "No trespassing" signs or you can lose your right to that land. There is no ambiguity when kidnapping someone. Assault requires the perpetrator of the crime to physically attack the person. There is no need to hook up the victim to a lie detector with any of those crimes because they all include actions which no lawful person would do.

Sex, however, is a perfectly lawful and healthy activity that suddenly becomes rape depending on the victim's state of mind.

My broader point is this: The real problem and the elephant in the room radical feminists don't want to acknowledge is that we don't punish date rape differently than we punish other kinds of rape. Language like "rape culture" (where "rape" is redefined to include buyer's remorse consensual sex) makes it impossible to change that.

When radical feminists claim there is a 2% false rape percentage, they are being dishonest with themselves and with the men who have been falsely accused of rape. Criticizing the specifics of Kanin's study misses the point that most other studies' error bars allow for a 40% false rape percentage, but, for ethical reasons, we don't have a methodology to get better numbers than, say, 6%-65%.


Here is a Huffpost comment showing the real motive of radical feminists and why they give us this "rape culture" nonsense:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/ltl...36796.html

Quote:men should not "go out, get drunk, and take their penis out of their pants or even think about putting anything near female genitalia, and then expect not to get charged with rape."

So, the objection is not non-consensual sex. The objection is with men who choose to drink and then hook up with women.

Post: #22

(07-26-2013 11:19 AM)placer Wrote:  Assault requires the perpetrator of the crime to physically attack the person.

Nope.

Assault: an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

battery n. the actual intentional striking of someone, with intent to harm

Quote:radical feminists don't want to acknowledge is that we don't punish date rape differently than we punish other kinds of rape.

These feminists definitely want to punish date rape harshly. Are you suggesting that date rape is a lesser offense than forcible stranger rape, or should be punished differently?

Post: #23

(07-27-2013 10:16 AM)Divorco Wrote:  These feminists definitely want to punish date rape harshly. Are you suggesting that date rape is a lesser offense than forcible stranger rape, or should be punished differently?

I think he's implying that date rape's definition has been stretched so thin due to ambiguity that it's hardly fair to consider being forced into unwanted sexual intercourse via physical coercion just as criminally offensive as a girl and guy getting drunk, hooking up behind her boyfriends back, and her regretting it due to guilt while claiming "rape" to absolve her conscience and maintain her innocence.

And he'd be right. Of the few real rape victims I've known, none hold false rape allegations and cases of buyer's remorse in higher contempt than they.

He didn't want to date me after I put out? RAPE!
He didn't want to talk to me the next day about planning a date with my girlfriends? RAPE!
He wasn't as good as I thought he might be in bed? RAPE!
He broke up with his girlfriend before hooking up with me in order to not offend her? RAPE!
He had a girlfriend he didn't tell me about? RAPE!
He wanted to see me again and I only wanted a one time thing? RAPE!
He was too good in bed and made me feel insecure about my own promiscuity because I'll presume that due to his talent he's obviously a player? RAPE!

I'm not saying all cases of date rape are as such. All I'm saying is the fact that those cases get treated with the same severity as a woman being drugged/beaten and forced into entirely non-consensual sexual intercourse is disturbing on many levels.

Post: #24

Sorry for the double post- just like to share a few more articles that show the 2% false rape claim is demonstrably false. I'll post an excerpt from each article so you can know if it pertains to your interest.

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/...t-so-lucky

Quote:Sexual moralists blame the falsely accused victim
All this hides the agenda of the sexual moralists. Even when the accusations are proven wrong, the victim is blamed. He deserves the false accusations. Strauss-Kahn is a womanizer. Why did he have sex with a maid he never met before? He deserves all that happened to him. Serves him a lesson. These are the same people that welcome AIDS as a punishment of God to curtail sexual liberation.

http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/...rch-report

Quote:1894 complaints of rape and sexual assault were filed to police of the state of Bavaria in 2000. The consensus estimate of all responsible officials is that way over 50% of accusations are false. Even when accusations are very dubious, police still file rape/sexual assault proceedings with prosecutors. Only in 7.4% of the complaints (1 in 13, N= 140) they propose legal action against the accuser for evidently false accusations, when there is clear proof or confession. The results of this meticulous 320 page research about rape and sexual assault in Bavaria replicate a less rigorous study in Schleswig Holstein state in 1994/1995, where 7.6% of complaints led to filing of false police report.

Post: #25

Caught this from The Mighty Roosh's twatter feed on his main page. A false rape accuser sent to.....jail in America. Can you believe that shit? Next thing you know they'll overhaul child support, child custody, alimony laws etc. Yeah right.

"A UCSB student charged with filing a false rape report after she solicited a man to beat her up in exchange for sex was sentenced Thursday to 60 days in Santa Barbara County Jail and three years of probation. As part of her no contest plea, 20-year-old Morgan Triplett is also required to complete 200 hours of community service, undergo 60 hours of mental-health treatment, and pay a $710 fine."
   

http://www.independent.com/news/2013/jul...pe-report/