As it becomes increasingly clear that the Rolling Stone reporting on an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia was not mere hyperbole but actually deliberate deception by the reporter, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, and seemingly the management of the magazine one of the most disturbing things to come to light is the way the bogus “rape culture” crisis on college campuses is being used to turn American jurisprudence on its head.

First off, let’s clear away the undergrowth. There is no “rape culture” out there. Rape and sexual assault do happen. There is no doubt of that. But a “rape culture” exists only in the minds of rabidly misandrist feminists, like, for instance, Amanda Marcotte, who loathe men and view anything done to harm men as a net good. For a “rape culture” to exist it not only has to be endemic, it has to be socially acceptable. The fact that the feminists have to rely on bogus incidents, like the Duke lacrosse case and now this, indicates that rape is not only rare, as it should be, but it is also severely punished where it is proven. FBI crime statistics show a steady downward trend in rape, it has dropped 16 points since 1992. As Jonah Goldberg observes:

Now, hold on. I certainly believe rape happens. And I definitely believe we have cultural problems that lead to date rape and other drunken barbarisms and sober atrocities. But the term “rape culture” suggests that there is a large and obvious belief system that condones and enables rape as an end in itself in America. This simply strikes me as an elaborate political lie intended to strengthen the hand of activists. There’s definitely lots that is wrong with our culture, particularly youth culture and specifically campus culture. Sybaritic, crapulent, hedonistic, decadent, bacchanalian: choose your adjectives.

What is most remarkable about our problems is that they seem to take people by surprise. For instance, it would be commonsense to our grandmothers that some drunk men will do bad things, particularly in a moral vacuum, and that women should take that into account. I constantly hear that instead of lecturing women about their behavior we should teach men not to rape. I totally, completely, 100 percent agree that we should teach men not to rape. The problem is we do that. A lot. Maybe we should do it more. We also teach people not to murder — another heinous crime. But murders happen too. That’s why we advise our kids to steer clear of certain neighborhoods at certain times and avoid certain behaviors. I’m not “pro-murder” if I tell my kid not to walk through the park at night and flash money around any more than I am pro-rape if I give her similar advice.

In short, the claim of a “rape culture” is simply a political tool used to bludgeon men into obedience, to engrain in the national psyche that women are victims, and to increase the political spoils of the radical, man-hating, feminist left.

The most common statistic you see tossed about to justify this claim of a “rape culture” emanates, naturally, from the neo-fascists at the Department of Justice. In 2007, a study was conducted under the auspices of the National Institute of Justice which found that 20% of women in college report being sexually assaulted. They also report that 16% claim to have been sexually assaulted prior to enrolling in college. What is significant is the way sexual assault is defined. In addition to including run-of-the-mill sex and the standard deviations, it includes:

forced touching of a sexual nature (forced kissing, touching of private parts, grabbing, fondling, rubbing up against you in a sexual way, even if it is over your clothes)

and

Have you suspected that someone has had sexual contact with you when you were unable to provide consent or stop what was happening because you were passed out, drugged, drunk, incapacitated, or asleep? This question asks about events that you think (but are not certain) happened.

This has resulted in colleges, like Vassar, defining sexual assault as really anything someone wants to complain about:

Sexual abuse: Physical attack is often accompanied by or culminates in some type of sexual intercourse with the victim, or forcing her/him to take part in unwanted sexual activity. Sexual violence may include, but is not limited to, treating the victim and other people as objects via actions and remarks, using sexual names, insisting on dressing or not dressing in a certain ways, touching in ways that make a person uncomfortable, rape, or accusing the victim of sexual activity with others.

Responding to bogus social science research and the outcry of hirsute harridans in college faculties, the Department of Education created a virtual Star Chamber to be used as a model of adjudicating complaints of sexual assault.

In April 2011, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights sent out a“Dear Colleague Letter” that outlined steps that colleges must take to respond to sexual assault on campus. This letter called for sensible reforms such as increased training for victims’ advocates, more partnerships with rape-crisis centers, and bystander awareness to teach men to intervene if they see a woman who is about to be victimized. But the letter also ordered colleges and universities to investigate and adjudicate students’ reports of sexual assault, even if the alleged victim decides not to have a medical exam or report the incident to the police. Colleges that do not take the steps recommended by the Office for Civil Rights will lose federal funding and be referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for litigation.

In a follow-up communication, the Department of Justice’s May 9, 2013 letter to the President of the University of Montana, the Obama administration admonishes colleges and universities to dramatically expand their definitions of what constitutes sexual harassment and assault and to lower standards of evidence needed to find students responsible for sexual assault. Not Alonea White House report released on April 29, 2014, criticizes our “adversarial, evidence-gathering criminal justice model” and commends schools that appoint a single investigator to “interview the complainant and alleged perpetrator, gather any physical evidence, interview available witnesses—and then . . . render a finding.”

A single-investigator model spares complainants from cross-examination, but it also places students at grave risk of not being able to defend themselves against false accusations. For example, Robert Shibley, Senior Vice President of theFoundation for Individual Rights in Education, estimates that he gets two calls a week from students who claim that they were falsely accused of sexual assault in campus disciplinary proceedings.

This inability to defend oneself is seen by the misandrist pushing this abusive type of disciplinary procedure as a feature, not a bug. If the complainant actually has to provide “proof” and the accused has the right to “defense” then the credo of “believe rape victims” becomes untenable because the presumption of innocence demands that an accusation be supported by a thing called “evidence.” This underpins our entire system of law. In 1765, English jurist William Blackstone said in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” It was embraced by the Massachusetts jury that John Adams persuaded to acquit the British soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre. It survives today in the standard that criminal convictions must be supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Because this standard requires an actual offense, other than buyer’s remorse or picque, the feminist movement is striving to remove it as the standard in sexual assault cases. Last week Erick wrote on an op-ed in the Washington Post that was (at the time) titled “No matter what Jackie said, we should automatically believe rape claims.” The Post has since changed the headline to read “generally” instead of “automatically” but a quick look a the URL tells the tale. Not only does the idiot writer of this piece assert that rape claims are different from any other complaint of violent crime, but falsely accusing men of rape actually benefits them:

The accused would have a rough period. He might be suspended from his job; friends might defriend him on Facebook. In the case of Bill Cosby, we might have to stop watching his shows, consuming his books or buying tickets to his traveling stand-up routine. But false accusations are exceedingly rare, and errors can be undone by an investigation that clears the accused, especially if it is done quickly.

The cost of disbelieving women, on the other hand, is far steeper. It signals that that women don’t matter and that they are disposable — not only to frat boys and Bill Cosby, but to us. And they face a special set of problems in having their say.

Sure, prison and being unable to find a job are no big thing. What is important is that no feelings are hurt and that women don’t have to be treated like adults. In fact, in an age of social media, a false accusation of rape permanently damages one’s chances of employment. Where the identity of the accuser is subject to an omerta by the press, the names of accused are routinely blasted across the internet with no follow up reporting if the accusation proves baseless… because that would mean the worst thing possible: that a man was not a criminal.