In the course of pondering Ezra Klein's odd views on due process with respect to "Yes Means Yes" and rape allegations, I have come across the following popular notion, written by Tara Culp-Ressler of Think Progress and endorsed by Michelle Goldberg of The Nation. Their gist - women don't lie about rape. To which I say, sure, maybe - in the current enviroment that is stacked against them. But what about after the system is made more victim-friendly?

In addition Ms. Goldberg asserts that

It is, after all, a right-wing canard that acquaintance rape cases tend to stem from misunderstanding rather than predation.

She points to a survey of self-confessed rapists as support. To which I say, a guy who sincerely believes he was persisting rather than intimidating and assaulting (Ezra explains) won't show up in a survey of self-confessed rapists. In addition to overlooking guys who would feel misunderstood if accused, this survey made no attempt to query woman as to whether they felt assaulted. Right wing canard it may be, but this isn't the study to make the case.

Let's press on. From Ms. Goldberg:

Some people have argued that it doesn’t really matter if those lines are blurry, because, contrary to what men’s rights activists claim, women have no incentive to abuse the system. (The law is gender neutral, of course, but it’s clearly women who are most likely to be sexually assaulted.) We know that women very rarely lie about rape, and so they’re unlikely to go to authorities if their partners deviate from the letter but not the spirit of the new rules. “If both partners were enthusiastic about the sexual encounter, there will be no reason for anyone to report a rape later,” wrote Tara Culp-Ressler in ThinkProgress. “So if college students are worried about protecting themselves from being penalized, it’s not hard—all they have to do is stick to engaging in physical contact with people who are clearly receptive to it at the time.”

Women won't lie for anger or revenge? So much for "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". This whole crazy ex-girlfriend thing is a myth with no foundation whatsover? I try to learn something new everyday.

In any case, the linked study suggests that about 6% of rape accusations are false-false; not just unprovable, not just subsequently dropped, but (as best as can be verified, sometimes by a recantation by the "victim") actually fabricated. As to the reliability of that result, Cathy Young has lots more.

Whether 6% is a little or a lot is a matter of opinion. But let me note a minor objection and then my major one.

The study looked at 136 rape allegations, or so they say (microagression alert!) since the numbers in Table 1 sum to 137. In any case, the authors tells us that there were 32 stranger rapes, 90 acquaintance rapes, and 15 where the appropriate categorization was unknown.

One might wonder whether the false rapes occured proportionately across those three categories; my unresearched guess is that the frequency of fabricated stranger rape claims is low relative to fabricated claims against an acquaintance.

The researchers can answer that question, but I can't. As an upper bound, if all eight false claims among the 136 (?) examined could be attibuted to the 90 cases of acquaintance rape, that would be a 8.9% fabricated charge rate. Might be worth knowing.

But my much bigger objection is this: we are seeing a 6% fabricated charge rate in a system that by wide agreement discourages women from coming forward. Presumably a system that discourages truthful accusations also discourages false ones. Is there any reason at all to think that the fabricated charge rate will go down, or even remain constant, in an environment that is much more supportive of the accuser?

So who has a reasonable guess as to the percentage of fabricated charges when the accuser will be put on a golden throne and the accused will have essentially no rights at all? Where would such a guess come from? And why are we comfortable restricting the rights of the accused lacking that information?

Troubling.

AND SINCE I AM HERE: Ms Goldberg gives me yet another opportunity to reflect on how two intelligent people can look at the same study and walk away with different conclusions. Here she is, my emphasis

The law might force couples into dialogue about their desires—obviously a good thing [because, and this is bad news for the Irish, we need to arrest people who aren't open about their feelings - TM]—but it’s hard to see how that alone will address rape. It is, after all, a right-wing canard that acquaintance rape cases tend to stem from misunderstanding rather than predation. Research at one campus by the scholars David Lisak and Paul M. Miller shows that most rapists are serial offenders who have committed other acts of violence as well. “This portrait is more consistent with the data on recidivism among sex offenders than with the still-prevalent image of a male college student who, under the influence of alcohol, mistakenly crosses the line between sexual pressure and rape,” they write. Yet California’s law treats the campus rape crisis as a communication problem, even as it blurs the parameters of what sexual assault is.

Hmm. The study involved a survey of men on some unidentified campus, a 6.4% of whom voluntarily and confidentially confessed to rape. Among that group of 120 men, 44 were one-time rapists and 76 were serial offenders, so it was a mix of predators and one-timers (some of whom, I suppose, would be more accurately called "first-timers", since even predators have to start at zero).

However, Ms. Goldberg seems to be engaging in a version of the No True Scotsman fallacy. We are not offered any data at all about rape and assault reports from the victim's perspective. Let's take for granted that every person on the other side of these self-reported rapes would agree that a rape had occurred. Does that speak to the frequency of misunderstanding and acquaintance rape? No - this is a study of men who understood themselves (at least upon reflection) to be committing rape.

But are there (mostly) women walking around feeling as if they had experienced an unreported rape while their (mostly male) counterparts and objective observers would sincerely disagree? That was not part of the survey so the data is not here, but if there are such women (as seems possible) then this study does not and could not give us a clear estimate as to what proportion of acquaintance rape allegations could be considered a misunderstanding.

This study, as best I can read it, was not designed and can't be used to support the conclusion offered by Ms. Goldberg.

Leaving us where? Some well-regarded feminist writers are reaching conclusions about the likelihood of fabricated charges and acquaintance misunderstandings based on studies that simply don't get them where they want to go. I will risk arrest by concealing my true feelings, but at a minimum, there is some confirmation bias being displayed by someone here. Maybe me!