"If a woman cries rape, then it must be true because no woman is willing to subject herself to such humiliation unless it were." This is the logic that women's advocacy groups put forward in any such incident.
I don't know. This argument just strikes me as specious.
This argument is premised on the supposition that all women are virtuous and unwilling to face humiliation except under the most extreme of circumstances. This supposition is simply not true.
Not all women are virtuous, at least, not in this day and age. It's entirely possible that a woman will cry rape for extortion or for revenge or for love of another man or for her children or for just plain spite. Women are complex, just as all human beings are complex.
Social stigma no longer carries the sting that it once did, either, at least, not in this day and age. Sex doesn't have the same exchange rate it once did and rape victims are hailed as heroines for coming out with their story. Media attention and a ready support group, what more can one ask for?
Sitting in a jail cell in Bulacan is a young quadraplegic, without use of his hands or feet, poring over chess books while spit drools from his mouth. Two men have to carry him to the bathroom. What was he accused of? Rape. Those strengthless hands, which could barely hold up a book, were supposed to have pointed a gun at his friend's girlfriend and forced her to have sex with him. Go figure.
But the accusation has to be true, right? He deserves to be in jail, right? Because if a woman cries rape, then it must be true because no woman is willing to subject herself to such humiliation unless it were.
Following this argument, why bother with a trial? A woman's accusation is already as good as condemnation. An accused rapist is already guilty. Of such are witch hunts made.
Let's stop with this outmoded psychology. Let the physical evidence speak first and foremost.