> Women get sexually harassed or assaulted much more than they fabricate allegations for personal gain (and note that this is not what happened in this case), as a woman rarely gains from making allegations, either true or false.

I don't understand the logic here, are you saying that men gain more from sexually harassing women than women gain from falsely accusing men? I think you would have a hard time finding a man who would be in a better position if he just started sexually harassing women.

Edit: Note that I believe that honest accusations are far more common than false ones, I am just criticizing this explanation.

I think GP is simply implying that, since "a woman rarely gains from making allegations, either true or false", she doesn't have a strong incentive to make false accusations. Which is IMO a fair explanation, though personally I disagree with the assumption here. The way sexual harassment is treated these days, even a vague false accusation is a very powerful weapon. Hell, even a threat of an accusation is a powerful weapon.

Sorry to interrupt your little men-only discussion "women: willing victim or scheming accuser?".

But did any of you notice that the alleged false accuser in this case is actually a man?

I'm pretty sure everyone here did, but this particular subthread diverged to a tangential topic, which is normal.

> If you have a knife and we have a nuclear weapon

Given the evidence, I think you're confused about who actually has a nuclear weapon. Like in real world, "knife attacks" are much more frequent, but a "nuclear weapon" tends to be much more devastating :).

Interesting how you enjoy being clever about millions of women being humiliated and hurt.