> Some of us have events in our past that we try not to think about, because if we think too hard, we might realize that we crossed the line. This fills men wit

> Some of us have events in our past that we try not to think about, because if we think too hard, we might realize that we crossed the line. This fills men with guilt and uncertainty, but also fear. We know the consequences if our doubts became known ... > So we lash out in this fear. We close ranks. We demand the most stringent standards of evidence to prove anything, evidence that we know is not likely to be there Let me get this straight here: sexually assaulting someone -> defensiveness -> expecting evidence So his criticism of people who expect evidence of assault is that they're really just defensive closet rapists? This seems like a really bizarre take, I wonder why he's making it Couldn't a more reasonable take be that more egregious allegations require more rigorous proof (and more extreme consequences for lying)? What's unreasonable about that expectation? If I go around accusing John Appleseed of murder and manage to fuck up his entire life, are you saying I should just be able to get away with that because murder is bad or under-prosecuted?