No, women are not conniving because there is no such thing as "women", except as a collective concept. There is only the individual woman. Some are conniving; overwhelmingly, though, most are decent human beings. It's almost like they're people.
I think rather than the myth of the temptress seeking to put men into bad situations for personal gain, false accusations (roughly 2 to 10 percent of rape accusations are false, according to best estimates... see link below) are more commonly a psychological result of our culture's Puritanism and sexual shaming. For instance, a woman may get a little drunk and make a bad decision, such as defying her parents' wishes that she remain sexless, or cheating on a partner. Then, when they sober up and are faced with people who saw them with the guy, they'll deny their own agency in making it happen... "Oh, no, I'm not one of those women, those dirty-dirty-sluts; he forced me!"
There are also examples I've seen, when working as a prison law clerk, of men whose wives used such accusations (or accusations of molestation of the children) as "cheap divorces", knowing the Law would "take him away". This is especially common where the guy has financial resources and she wants to have them but not keep him. Juries, unfortunately, tend to believe eyewitness testimony (the least reliable) over actual science (such as the examiner finding no evidence of rape/molestation).
But, while the cabbie-on-camera story is horrifying and terrifying, I'm afraid I can't buy that it's anything but an anomaly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape
In the case of someone who has had lightning strike them ten times in a row, I'd have to question the psychological aspects/motivations of the woman making these allegations. No man is entitled to sex, no matter what the circumstances may be that lead up to the situation; likewise, no man is deserving of being treated as automatically-guilty in the case of such an accusation.
I think rather than the myth of the temptress seeking to put men into bad situations for personal gain, false accusations (roughly 2 to 10 percent of rape accusations are false, according to best estimates... see link below) are more commonly a psychological result of our culture's Puritanism and sexual shaming. For instance, a woman may get a little drunk and make a bad decision, such as defying her parents' wishes that she remain sexless, or cheating on a partner. Then, when they sober up and are faced with people who saw them with the guy, they'll deny their own agency in making it happen... "Oh, no, I'm not one of those women, those dirty-dirty-sluts; he forced me!"
There are also examples I've seen, when working as a prison law clerk, of men whose wives used such accusations (or accusations of molestation of the children) as "cheap divorces", knowing the Law would "take him away". This is especially common where the guy has financial resources and she wants to have them but not keep him. Juries, unfortunately, tend to believe eyewitness testimony (the least reliable) over actual science (such as the examiner finding no evidence of rape/molestation).
But, while the cabbie-on-camera story is horrifying and terrifying, I'm afraid I can't buy that it's anything but an anomaly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape
In the case of someone who has had lightning strike them ten times in a row, I'd have to question the psychological aspects/motivations of the woman making these allegations. No man is entitled to sex, no matter what the circumstances may be that lead up to the situation; likewise, no man is deserving of being treated as automatically-guilty in the case of such an accusation.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
