You are here: Home / Mega Featured / Lies, Damned Lies, and Charles Clymer
math genius goofball wiz750

Lies, Damned Lies, and Charles Clymer

By 17 Comments

It is difficult to know at times what to say about people like Charles Clymer. Having accused A Voice for Men of refusing to debate women and then ignored all requests for debate or discussion with female MRAs, having publicly promised to send us an article with supposed errors or just plain wrong things we’ve published on AVfM and then ignoring all emails asking him to provide that so we could print it on our front pages (which we would still do by the way) we’ve instead seen him publicly claiming he wants to “start a debate” on places like Twitter and Facebook and then refusing further debate requests (especially, it appears, with women who might question him) and writing silly things like Five Things More Likely To Happen To You Than Being Accused Of Rape, in which, according to Charles, a man is considerably more likely to be hit by a comet, become an NFL player, be hit by lightning, and so on, than to ever be falsely accused of rape.

We shouldn’t have to say so, but all his figures are headache-inducing and wrong. We’re used to seeing bad math from feminists, such as when they behave as if that the vast majority of domestic violence victims are women beaten by men. That’s just a lie, parity or near-parity in domestic violence is no longer scientifically disputable–indeed, it’s hard not to suspect that, in recent years, feminists have turned the rape hysteria knob up several notches because they know the clock is ticking on the Domestic Violence issue: the facts just are not on their side, and they increasingly seem to know it; women are just as violent as men in intimate partner relationships, so what else can they use to gin up fear for women?

But my God, even the Domestic Violence industry has never been so brazen as to be off by factors of thousands, even tens of thousands, like Clymer’s article on rape.

Let’s be clear here that the problem is not because his math is bad per se; it appears from what I can see that he is adding and subtracting and multiplying and dividing properly–as in, he is not asserting that 3+12=5. Instead, he’s applying his math improperly. What he’s doing is very much like noting that about 1.1% of motor vehicle traffic fatalities involve motorcycles, and about 98.1% of motor vehicle fatalities involve cars or trucks, and concluding that if you ride a motorcycle you have a 1% chance of dying, and you have a 98% chance of dying if you ride in a car or truck. So, everybody ditch your SUV death traps and get a much safer Kawasaki Ninja!

Does that sound like crazy logic, wrong in multiple ways at once? Well that’s because it is. But believe it or not, it’s arguably less crazy than what Clymer’s written.

Since that Buzzfeed article does not show his work, we probably want to look at his blog post on rape written a few days before the Buzzfeed piece. That article starts by noting the FBI records about 84,000 forcible rapes per year in the US, and the FBI suggests about 8 of those are false accusations. He then goes on to calculate that, given the average man has sex 99 times per year there are 5.1 billion acts of sexual intercourse each year among men aged 15-39 in the US. Divide 5.1 billion by 6,750, and, “the odds of any sexually-active male between the ages of 15 and 39 has a 750,000 to 1 chance of being falsely accused of rape.”

Furthermore, “Here’s another way to look at it. The National Institute of Justice estimates that men have a 1 in 33 chance of being raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetime. In other words, men are 27,500x more likely to be raped than falsely accused of rape.”

So, he calculated the odds of being accused of rape per sex act, and then declared this was the odds of being accused of rape in your lifetime.

We don’t even have to ask whether the FBI’s statistics are a proper source on false allegations to know this is wrong.

And what Charles does not acknowledge is that the FBI statistics aren’t sufficient by a long shot; they only include reported crimes. I have known men who were accused of rape who were never reported to the police because the woman backed up and admitted she was lying without ever going to the police. I don’t think I’m unusual in that regard; false rape allegations are a very good way to explain away an otherwise-unexplainable pregnancy, getting caught cheating, or even to emotionally manipulate or blackmail someone.

Hell, I knew another girl who accused a guy of raping her in High School; they were both high on drugs and they wound up having sex, and she later told all her guy friends he raped her. She admits she never liked the guy but things got hot when they were doing drugs together at a party. Now, no one went to the police; her friends just found him and beat the crap out of him and it was over. Did he actually rape her? If you ask her today, she’ll admit she was high as a kite, and they’d been willingly doing drugs together, and she herself isn’t sure what happened. I suspect Charles Clymer and other feminist rape hysterics would angrily fulminate that she was raped if she thinks she was raped. I am not so sure what happened there, just as she isn’t; I do know she regretted the sex act they committed while willingly doing drugs together, and her friends beat the crap out of him, but that’s all I know, and it’s really all she knows.

I suppose we’ll have to skip the question of why the man is automatically the rapist if they’re both drugged up or intoxicated. But, we also know for a fact that police almost never believe male victims of female-perpetrated rape, and that government statistics intentionally define rape to exclude most female rapists, relegating most victims of females to “something else.” The entire discourse on sexual assault is polluted because we frequently mix apples and oranges, and different studies ask different questions different ways and using different definitions, and we have a huge blind spot when it comes to female predators and marginalize them constantly.

And yes, there will be women who are raped who never press charges in the first place. Some of them will be cases where it’s because they recognize the circumstances are unclear to outside observers; others maybe because they believe rape hysterics who tell them that the police never believe women–a horrible lie when we know police and prosecutors are often quick to believe women even when there is no real evidence at all, as in the case of Sara Ylen.

Yes Charles, men do get accused of rape by women they’ve never had sex with, occasionally even of raping a woman they’ve never been in the same room with, and still go to jail for it. Of all the people freed from jail due to wrongful convictions by The Innocence Project, the majority were men proven to have been not just falsely accused, but falsly convicted, of rape. That won’t be in the FBI statistics either, Mr. Clymer. And those were only cases where they could prove the innocence of the wrongly-convicted.

If you want a more detailed, blow-by-blow look at how rigorous statistical analysis is done, and all the other ways Charles Clymer’s math makes no sense at all, see Lies, Damned Lies, and Social Media Part 5 by Slate Star Codex (note: Slate Star Codex that is not an MRA blog and from what I can tell its author doesn’t like delving into sexual politics, but it’s too good an analysis not to mention.) That article would be worthy of distribution by Buzzfeed if they wanted to to take a serious attitude about discussions of false allegations, but I have to wonder if they’d have the courage.

In any case, this is a repeat call-out to Charles Clymer (or any other feminist, male or female, who will accept): female MRAs have challenged you to debate questions like rape, domestic violence, feminism, female predation, or even, whether or not the Men’s Human Rights Movement in general or A Voice for Men in particular are hate groups.

You often claim you want debate and discussion Charles. So why aren’t you accepting? For that matter, when oh when will you produce the article you promised us on our supposed errors?

It would be nice if Charles and his compatriots were for real, and genuinely wanted to see progress on issues like rape and sexual assault, and greater understanding and compassion for men and women alike. Feminists and MHRAs supposedly share the same goals. I won’t hold my breath, but if they won’t hear men’s voices, it would be nice if they’d at least talk to women who disagree with them.

About Dean Esmay

AVfM Operations Manager Dean Esmay co-hosts AVfM Radio's Revelations with Erin Pizzey on domestic violence, and Tales from the Infrared on geek culture. He encourages people to look at issues through the lens of compassion for men who deserve it, and respect for women who deserve it. He is the author of the critically-acclaimed novel Methuselah's Daughter.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • nawotsme

    Dean you nearly had me convinced to trade my car in for a kawasaki ninja till I thought about it a bit lol.

    I’m afraid Mr Clymer is not very convincing with the stats. Can’t see him picking up the challenge any time soon.

    Good article, thanks.

  • onca747

    Charles Clymer is a grade-A turd. A lump of dog shit steaming away on the lawn of truth and decency. But karma has a way of coming back round, especially to those in such a precarious situation as a white knight in a sea of femi-fascists. Or, as Dirty Harry once said, “Be careful of the dog that shit ya”.

    • Mark Trueblood

      Yes, like when Hugo Schwyzer was showered with attention & praise by these ideologues for telling them what they wanted to hear.

  • MGTOW-man

    That’s right! If we are so wrong then why do they not jump—ACTUALLY LEAP— at the chance to prove it to the world? Their transparent claim that debating us would acknowledge the need for them to state/claim their existence as feminists “all over again” , is so full of fecal matter that I can smell the stench… from my neck of the woods.

    Besides, with time, all things need reevaluating. Feminists and women are no exception…nor should they be. That claim is so bogus it is about as thick as a piece of food wrap.

    They have a chance to more than discredit us and gain much more huge support for themselves when they show the world the egg on our faces. So why not do that?

    They will not debate us for at least these reasons. True colors:

    They will lose. They can hype, lie, exaggerate, pity-monger, oblivio-feel, etc., their way into the minds of the gullible while in their lofty “teaching positions” but when in front of people, unedited, stretching stuff doesn’t look so good and will cause them to lose— flat out.

    Part of them…their oblivious but “educated” part… wants to believe that they are righteous and correct. The other part of them…the part they hide… knows better. They would never tell on themselves like a debate would most certainly do. They may be dumb—and they ARE (oblivious)—but they are not stupid!…some of them anyway

    They GET MORE by exploiting men for chivalry and special favors (like protection, among many others) and by exploiting the feelings-derived wishful-thinking, gullibility of average women. Flying their lies under the radar this way GETS THEM MORE! Just one case in point: VAWA

    What’s the matter truth and male-hating fembots? Cat got your tongue? Or more correctly, have you filled your own mouths with overflows from your own rectal orifices?

    I think they call that shyt and fell in it.

    Must have! I smell it from here!

    Prove to us and the world we’re wrong! I dare you!

  • kronk3

    “…Of all the people freed from jail due to wrongful convictions by The Innocence Project, the majority were men proven to have been not just falsely accused, but falsly convicted, of rape”.

    This point alone should be enough to shut Charles up but somehow, don’t doubt it, he already knows this and does not care to let ‘facts’ get in the way of his agenda.

    Worse then the worst feminist are ‘white knights’ or ‘Manginas’ as they not only condone their OWN oppression by females, but into the bargain, they also “bear false witness against they neighbor” (men) by lining up with our opposition, and thereby ‘aiding and abetting’ the feminists reprehensible treatment of all males.

    Mr. Clymer, Seriously, your brain is broken-

    “You can lead a human to knowledge, but you can’t make him think”

  • https://www.facebook.com/darryl.jewett.3 darryl

    “…parity or near-parity in domestic violence is no longer scientifically disputable…”

    I shouldn’t have to be writing this but apparently it’s still necessary. When you subtract the men who are accused of domestic violence but are defending himself or his children from the mother’s abuse (meaning that it’s not domestic violence by men but a response to the offensive and unprovoked domestic violence by women), women are responsible for most domestic violence. There is no “parity” or “near-parity”. Not even close. Many researchers like Daniel Whitaker and Murray Straus have concluded as such in their well-conceived and comprehensive studies. The MRM must stop portraying just for the sake of political correctness and to appease women in the ranks problems like domestic violence and parental alienation as gender-neutral phenomena when they clearly are not. Divorce, custody, child support, parental alienation, domestic violence and many other phenomena are problems mostly for men (and concerning some phenomena, almost exclusively problems for men). Even when women do encounter these kinds of phenomena, the consequences for them aren’t nearly as bad as for the men. The inclination for and drift toward political correctness and for appeasing women has always been an important down-fall of the MRM. I’m seeing it more and more in books and threads on social media by feminist therapists like Linda Gottlieb and Amy Baker about parental alienation. An attempt to portray these phenomena as gender-neutral to co-opt the problem, deny that men are most of the real victims, portray women as most victims and dismiss any real solutions that might help men (most victims). Until women, feminists and even men in the MRM are willing to correct this problem, there will be no changes. For instance, I was appalled when Ned Holstein, Robert Franklin and others at the National Parents Organization promoted one of Linda Gottlieb’s books about parental alienation even though she is clearly a devout feminist and does not support or even acknowledge in a meaningful way that men can be victims. Even the change in name of their organization from “Fathers and Families” to “National Parents Organization” reflects this drift toward gender-neutrality of problems that are hardly gender-neutral.

    • Chad_Nine

      “When you subtract the men who are accused of domestic violence but are defending himself or his children from the mother’s abuse (meaning that it’s not domestic violence by men but a response to the offensive and unprovoked domestic violence by women), women are responsible for most domestic violence. ”

      I was not aware of this. Thank you for pointing it out. I can easily believe it.

      • https://www.facebook.com/darryl.jewett.3 darryl

        Yeah, Chad. For instance, from my review of social media, court records, census data, data from the US Dept of Public Health and Human Services, and many other sources, mothers complain that they are alienated from their children even though they initiated divorce, have sole legal and physical custody, collect inordinate amounts of child support, committed and continue committing adultery, allow their boy-friends more time with her children than the father, in some instances even committed paternity fraud and in many instances have had the father jailed for child support arrears or false allegations of child abuse. A father who is the victim of a unilateral and malicious divorce, is unable to see his children because of false allegations and financial inability, is forced to spend less time with his own children than the mother’s boyfriend or children’s step-dad, is in jail for child support arrears and/or false allegations of child abuse, pays inordinate amounts of child support to the mother, is not even the father of the children, etc… is the REAL victim of parental alienation. Yet I encounter mothers all the time who confess to these circumstances and still claim they are victims of parental alienation. It’s completely insane. Feminists like Linda Gottlieb perpetuate these misconceptions. And even men in the MRM defend these women and their irrational claims. It’s as if a father is guilty of parental alienation just because he wants a responsible relationship with his own children but a mother who objects to this development and wants to continue using her children as meal-tickets is alienated. We exist in a culture populated by those who can’t assess or interpret these developments objectively and see them for what they are. That’s how completely the feminist lobby has manipulated public perception of these kinds of phenomena. And how they continue doing it. Women victims and men abusers. Despite the objective facts. They’ve reduced perception of the problem of parental alienation to a bunch of feelings which can never be interpreted consistently instead of objective facts which can. A mother can divorce the father of her children, collect inordinate amounts of child support, lie about the father, send him to jail, deny him access to his children, etc… but if he objects to all these offensive and unprovoked behaviors, then he is the alienator and she is the victim. Which is why I continue to caution the MRM about a drift toward gender neutrality as a way to appease our enemies. Whenever you find a gender-neutral solution to a problem that affects almost exclusively men, you can bet it will not help the men but will be used to enrich and enable women at the expense of the men.

  • Duke

    The reasoning behind the current US law enforcement manufactured statistics Alliances, is that gender-feminists told law enforcement that it was such a life changing-ly hard thing for a women to come forward with her rape accusations…that American law enforcement ( by hiding the true percentages of false accusations from the public) will somehow “make it easier for a women to come forward.
    But challenging the assertion that its so life alteringly hard for a women to come forward with her rape accusation, is that fact that some are now “coming forward” for such trivial reasons as she didn’t want to pay her 13 dollar cab fare.

  • latebloomer

    Woh, woh woh. The average male has sex 99 times a year!? I REALLY REALLY doubt that.

    • Mark Trueblood

      Who knows for sure. But you have to figure that the alpha males with virtual harems and men with sexually adventurous partners have sex way, way more than 99 times a year. So they bump up the average.

    • markis1

      i havent had sex in about 4 years.and probably never will submit to sexual relations again..MGTOW

    • onca747

      It doesn’t mean sex with a woman. Lol.

  • rayc2

    “i havent had sex in about 4 years.and probably never will submit to sexual relations again..MGTOW”

    Oddly though, you could still find yourself accused of rape. I expect the odds are slim for someone who is celibate, but still probably higher odds than Clymer’s calculation (and increasing). ABR especially around the young crowd.

    • Duke

      American courts are getting so perverse, that sex you had 10 years ago, Unless you can prove it was not rape, was in fact rape.!!!!

  • jerrytheother

  • mcdias

    Seriously, the problem in all this discussion is considering men and women different. It’s the dicotomy we/they, we men/they women, we women/they men…