Link: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2026/sep/25/woman-who-accused-jay-z-of-raping-her-aged-13-says-claims-were-false

A woman who accused Jay-Z of raping her when she was 13 years old has formally withdrawn her allegation, saying that she has never met the rap superstar.

The unnamed woman had originally made the allegation in a lawsuit filed in 2024, claiming that Jay-Z, real name Shawn Carter, had drugged and raped her with Sean Combs, known as P Diddy. The incident was alleged to have happened at a party after an MTV awards ceremony in 2000.

Jay-Z denied the allegations, describing them as a blackmail attempt, and Combs also denied them. Jay-Z’s lawyer maintained the events relied on an “impossible timeline”. The woman dropped the lawsuit in 2025, and Jay-Z filed a counter suit.

As that lawsuit progresses, the woman has now said her claims were false. “Shawn ‘Jay-Z’ Carter never raped me. I have never met or spoken to Mr Carter. Mr Carter never engaged in any inappropriate conduct toward me whatsoever,” she said in a declaration obtained by Rolling Stone.

People get offended when I say how absurd it is to me that our culture expects a man to act as if they're guilty simply for being accused of something, but this is another example of why.

So she got paid or she needs to go to prison for false accusations. I know they are both prices of shit but these kind of things happen all the time to good people. False accusations destroy peoples lives.

Plus, the more times that the accusations turn out to be false, the less people are going to be inclined to believe real victims.

One we need to be careful of though, is not letting the pendulum switch too far the other way. We can't be punishing real victims just because they don't have enough proof to make charges stick.

To me, the problem is when people systematically do not believe people accusing others of wrongdoings on the premise that we live in a society with a principle of "innocent until proven guilty". All true, but if you are victim of sexual violence and don't have ironclad proof or the means to defend yourself legally, you then can't do anything to prevent future victims.

Nobody expects men to act guilty. That's preposterous. There are a fuck ton of men who are guilty and deny it. They are the source of the problem. False accusers are a rare phenomenon.

The solution is really quite simple in my view and I don't think I've heard anyone put it like this:

You do not need proof to help protect people. You do need proof to punish people.

"Believe victims" and "Guilty until proven innocent" are not contradictory statements, they are the two policies we should be applying to the alleged victim and alleged abuser simultaneously.

our culture expects a man to act as if they're guilty simply for being accused of something

... You're really going to have to explain that one.

I must be more sleep deprived than I thought. You are right and unless I'm missing something big, their comment doesn't actually make any sense. Yet it got lots of upvotes. So confused.

Exactly! Unrelated, is your username a reference to a hidden track on one of the Nirvana records?

Stupid bitch just made it harder for every single victim of rape to come forward. Hope she gets the book thrown at her.

You're not wrong.

Sounds nice, how do we protect people in this scenario?

Plus they harm real victims

The word “expect” has multiple meanings.

What’s your alternative, and how do we protect people abuse in that scenario?

Do you have any idea what they mean by "expect" here?

Lemmycels, that's why. This sausage fest is just 4chan for the left.

What do you mean? They said "you do not need proof to help protect people". Ok, how do we help protect people? The scenario was a victim of sexual violence that can't provide ironclad proof or have the means to defend themselves in a legal way, but want to protect possible future victims. I literally don't know what they meant. Can you help?

we could start with innocent until guilty, and names are private until guilty.

“Demands”

It would help if they responded.. but they haven't.

People get offended when I say how absurd it is to me that our culture expects demands that a man to act as if they’re guilty simply for being accused of something

Still does not make sense to me. The closest thing I can figure out would be that OP thinks that men not being accepted if they assassinate a woman's character in response to an allegation means we "demand" that they act like they're guilty. Basically the antithesis of "believe women". ???

They didn't say anything about character assassination. I think you're over-reading.

No I'm not.

The closest thing I can figure out

Isn't exactly the tone of someone freaking out.

While I agree with you in spirit, having the names of people that were arrested made public, makes it that much harder for the state to make someone vanish.

Never said you were “freaking out” either.

Not sure if trolling or just stupid, but either way this dialogue is over.

I read "unnamed" as "unarmed"

you can have the name's be public but not the crimes

I can only assume there's a reason you're weirdly defending someone's sus comments like this. At no point did anything you replied with make sense to say. You've earned yourself a tag.

Yes

We should help to empower people to defend themselves before they become victims, either for the first time or for the 50th time. There are lots of ways.

• Teaching them how to recognize the patterns of dangerous people
• Escorting them when it might be unsafe otherwise
• Help them create distance between them and their abusers
• Encouraging self defense training and accompanying them to it
• Help them secure their home against intrusion
• Let them stay at your place for a while when things get too hot

It's really not that hard to think of ways that don't involve throwing potentially innocent people in jail. You can also just ask people what you can do for them. They probably know already and better than you do.

$$$?

Anyone that believes "we should believe women that report a sexual attack" should agree that this woman should face a very harsh penalty. If the penalty for making false accusations is not harsh enough, we can't have a society that trusts these kinds of accusations.

(Some) rapes are very hard to prove, since the difference between consensual sex and rape is often "he said, she said". In the cases where they are disproved "note that not-proved is not the same as disproved", the accuser should be appropriately punished.

Trust is hard to build, easy to break and such a breach should be taken at least as seriously as the accusation.

Great tips. It doesn't really align with a lot of sexual violence that occurs or how to protect people that have been victim and want for future victims to not happen though.

Even if we did all of what you suggest for people I know, they still had their drink spiked, were abused by the coach/medical practitioner/celebrity/rich asshole, were groped at work by a superior, etc. Some of them went to make a police report and nothing happened, some of them heard of someone else down the line that got abused in the same way by the same person. What I know is none of them saw their abuser facing any meaningful consequences. Statistics on sexual violence seem to agree with my anecdotal evidence.

Do you have any tips for these situations, that are more common than people think? What happens when a relative say they have been predated on, but they don't have, like I said, ironclad proof or means to defend themselves legally? How do you help protect people then? Do you wait for a definitive legal proof of it or do you believe what they are saying? In the same way, I feel, when accusations are numerous, seem credible, are coming from people that don't know each other and don't seem to profit in any way from it, I find it hard to say that I need to wait for a trial or something. I am not saying that in the case of this person with Jay-Z it applies, I know nothing about it. What I know is people that could do basically nothing but pass the word to not choose that coach for their kids, if you know what I mean. And they have to live with the knowing that kids are still probably being predated on by that coach.

I get your position though. Let's do everything we can to _prevent _ anything from happening. That's great and I agree. What do we do when it happened?

When it does happen, we help them create as much distance as possible and generally do everything I mentioned already to protect them from it happening again. You gave too many examples / questions for me to address them all but I think we are more or less on the same page here.

If I heard my relative was sexually abused by another relative, I would do everything in my power to prevent them ever being in the same room again. You don't need any proof to do this unless it's like a parent/child situation in which case I'd call CPS. You don't need hard proof to call CPS either. Allegations should trigger action to protect and serious investigation. What they shouldn't trigger is punishment.

An innocent person in jail or facing life ruining consequences due to a faulty legal system or extrajudicial punishment is a travesty society shouldn't / can't bear.

Thanks for your response. I do believe that an innocent person in jail due to extrajudicial punishment is to be avoided, so I am not saying we should believe everyone all the time.

My point is more in the sense that I do get it when victims are pointing out people doing bad things to them. I don't want people being "canceled", lose their job, go to prison or whatever for unsubstantied claims. But considering that people are already really quick to blame people who accuse others of wrongdoings, I just think it might further silence victims to go all "when there is no ironclad proof, we should make accusers pay" or something. Not saying you implied that.

"Men are the source of false accusations". Victim blaming if I've ever seen it.

She should be punished for this.