Cornell 7

20,168 Views | 267 Replies | Last: 2 hrs ago by Danielsjackson114
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

I'm with Mitch, someone should have protected her. Young men need to do better.

Do women not have agency? Are they free-willed or not? Are they able to make decisions or not?

Why can't both young men AND young women need to do better?

Should someone have protected the boys? By her own account, some were more inebriated than she was and she had to *help them*. Did that "young man" need protection?

Because it's not how it works. That it should isn't helping the guys losing their jobs.

I'm reminded that Tamir Rice was a 12-year-old boy playing with a toy gun in the park, and people blamed his parents for his death.

Can you answer the questions?

In the real world, rape is decided by the prosecutor. Guilt is attached to that decision.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tempus Edax Rerum said:

I'm with Mitch, someone should have protected her. Young men need to do better.

Yes, but Kim Crawford is arguing a straw man.

As I posted above, 100% someone should have protected her, and it is a shame that they did not - however, this is the end game of feminism and what it has wanted because protecting her would have been "paternalistic."

However, the discussion is a legal not a moral one. I think the issue is that since the left does not have a moral language, it just had to pick sides based on identity and dig in regardless of facts, which clearly Kim is doing once again.
Danielsjackson114
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another girl trying to cash in
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

I'm with Mitch, someone should have protected her. Young men need to do better.

Do women not have agency? Are they free-willed or not? Are they able to make decisions or not?

Why can't both young men AND young women need to do better?

Should someone have protected the boys? By her own account, some were more inebriated than she was and she had to *help them*. Did that "young man" need protection?

Because it's not how it works. That it should isn't helping the guys losing their jobs.

I'm reminded that Tamir Rice was a 12-year-old boy playing with a toy gun in the park, and people blamed his parents for his death.

Can you answer the questions?

In the real world, rape is decided by the prosecutor.

Who wants to tell her?
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

I'm with Mitch, someone should have protected her. Young men need to do better.

Do women not have agency? Are they free-willed or not? Are they able to make decisions or not?

Why can't both young men AND young women need to do better?

Should someone have protected the boys? By her own account, some were more inebriated than she was and she had to *help them*. Did that "young man" need protection?

Because it's not how it works. That it should isn't helping the guys losing their jobs.

I'm reminded that Tamir Rice was a 12-year-old boy playing with a toy gun in the park, and people blamed his parents for his death.

Can you answer the questions?

In the real world, rape is decided by the prosecutor.
So, no, you won't answer the questions.

I will point to this case and continue to raise my son AND my daughter to make good decisions and there are sometimes consequences to such such actions. Still doesn't make what happened a crime.
Osodecentx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

I'm with Mitch, someone should have protected her. Young men need to do better.

Do women not have agency? Are they free-willed or not? Are they able to make decisions or not?

Why can't both young men AND young women need to do better?

Should someone have protected the boys? By her own account, some were more inebriated than she was and she had to *help them*. Did that "young man" need protection?

Because it's not how it works. That it should isn't helping the guys losing their jobs.

I'm reminded that Tamir Rice was a 12-year-old boy playing with a toy gun in the park, and people blamed his parents for his death.
Can you answer the questions?


I expect more from men. They could & should have protected her. I would not have them prosecuted.
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

I'm with Mitch, someone should have protected her. Young men need to do better.

Do women not have agency? Are they free-willed or not? Are they able to make decisions or not?

Why can't both young men AND young women need to do better?

Should someone have protected the boys? By her own account, some were more inebriated than she was and she had to *help them*. Did that "young man" need protection?

Because it's not how it works. That it should isn't helping the guys losing their jobs.

I'm reminded that Tamir Rice was a 12-year-old boy playing with a toy gun in the park, and people blamed his parents for his death.
Can you answer the questions?


I expect more from men. They could & should have protected her. I would not have them prosecuted.
I expect more from my son and my daughter. I would be extremely disappointed in either if they acted in the same way as the men and woman is this sad tale.

I agree that no one should be prosecuted.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Osodecentx said:

90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

I'm with Mitch, someone should have protected her. Young men need to do better.

Do women not have agency? Are they free-willed or not? Are they able to make decisions or not?

Why can't both young men AND young women need to do better?

Should someone have protected the boys? By her own account, some were more inebriated than she was and she had to *help them*. Did that "young man" need protection?

Because it's not how it works. That it should isn't helping the guys losing their jobs.

I'm reminded that Tamir Rice was a 12-year-old boy playing with a toy gun in the park, and people blamed his parents for his death.

Can you answer the questions?


I expect more from men. They could & should have protected her. I would not have them prosecuted.

There is a reason the district attorney refused prosectution.

Not surprising Democrat Kim Crawford likes lynch mobs, which is the only reason the D.A. begrudgingly filed charges after the Democrat lynch mob reacted to her civil suit.

You can take the Democrats out of the Klan, but you can't take the Klan out of the Democrats.
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

I'm with Mitch, someone should have protected her. Young men need to do better.

Do women not have agency? Are they free-willed or not? Are they able to make decisions or not?

Why can't both young men AND young women need to do better?

Should someone have protected the boys? By her own account, some were more inebriated than she was and she had to *help them*. Did that "young man" need protection?

Because it's not how it works. That it should isn't helping the guys losing their jobs.

I'm reminded that Tamir Rice was a 12-year-old boy playing with a toy gun in the park, and people blamed his parents for his death.

Can you answer the questions?

In the real world, rape is decided by the prosecutor.

So, no, you won't answer the questions.

I will point to this case and continue to raise my son AND my daughter to make good decisions and there are sometimes consequences to such such actions. Still doesn't make what happened a crime.

I answered your question. You don't like the answer. You're asking where is her reponsibility in me putting ketamine on my dick and sticking it in her mouth. Her responsibility lies with the decision of the prosecutor.
90sBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

I'm with Mitch, someone should have protected her. Young men need to do better.

Do women not have agency? Are they free-willed or not? Are they able to make decisions or not?

Why can't both young men AND young women need to do better?

Should someone have protected the boys? By her own account, some were more inebriated than she was and she had to *help them*. Did that "young man" need protection?

Because it's not how it works. That it should isn't helping the guys losing their jobs.

I'm reminded that Tamir Rice was a 12-year-old boy playing with a toy gun in the park, and people blamed his parents for his death.

Can you answer the questions?

In the real world, rape is decided by the prosecutor.

So, no, you won't answer the questions.

I will point to this case and continue to raise my son AND my daughter to make good decisions and there are sometimes consequences to such such actions. Still doesn't make what happened a crime.

I answered your question. You don't like the answer. You're asking where is her reponsibility in me putting ketamine on my dick and sticking it in her mouth. Her responsibility lies with the decision of the prosecutor.
I responded to you in good faith. Since you will not do the same I won't reply any more.
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

I'm with Mitch, someone should have protected her. Young men need to do better.

Do women not have agency? Are they free-willed or not? Are they able to make decisions or not?

Why can't both young men AND young women need to do better?

Should someone have protected the boys? By her own account, some were more inebriated than she was and she had to *help them*. Did that "young man" need protection?

Because it's not how it works. That it should isn't helping the guys losing their jobs.

I'm reminded that Tamir Rice was a 12-year-old boy playing with a toy gun in the park, and people blamed his parents for his death.

Can you answer the questions?

In the real world, rape is decided by the prosecutor.

So, no, you won't answer the questions.

I will point to this case and continue to raise my son AND my daughter to make good decisions and there are sometimes consequences to such such actions. Still doesn't make what happened a crime.

I answered your question. You don't like the answer. You're asking where is her reponsibility in me putting ketamine on my dick and sticking it in her mouth. Her responsibility lies with the decision of the prosecutor.

I responded to you in good faith. Since you will not do the same I won't reply any more.

I responded to you in good faith. You don't like the answer. If the world were full of people taking responsibility for their actions, we'd have fewer prisons. The country is full of innocent people in jail, often because of the whims of a cop or prosecutor.

I just saw a man in Galveston (could be Corpus) who was pulled over by an officer for a dubious reason. Forced out of the car, punched, shot, and killed by the officer. No charges.

Jesse Butler is walking free. Should have gotten 20 years. Why?

In the case we're talking about, the prosecutors are taking a second look at the case. They will get the text messages. They will respond to public pressure, and they will charge a number of these boys.

Even if she initially consented, initially, how can a person on ketamine continue to consent?
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

secIf I send you a text that says free *****What's disturbing is that a text was sent to a group of men saying "free *****" and no one said "***" brothers. Instead, several of them showed up for some.




The "free *ussy" thing was the straw that broke the camels back for you?

Not the Ketamine snorting off peoples naked bodies?
The girl being "excited" about another guy joining in because for whatever strange reason this turned her on sexually that the two guys might be queers?
The other girl and several people have sex in the room of another guy who was his room but upset they were there and eventually kicked them out?

The whole things was depraved and stupid and out of control.

The "free *ussy" text is the least of it

Yes, that's the thing. Play with me.

I send you a text that says "Free *****" and you act appropriately. Do you:

1. Sort Ketamine off of a drunk woman?
2. Do you rape a drunk woman?
3. Is your face posted all over the internet?
4. Do you lose your job?
5. Are you charged with rape?

The text says everything about to happen ain't gonna be good. AND receiving it puts a responsibility on the other 43 men to act.

My family has put me in a few "group text" that I have on ignore. I've considered leaving them but didn't want to appear like an *******. I'm rethinking staying. From my perspective, this risk has shifted to all members in the group especially the ones who can't afford counsel.

The text is the primary evidence in the prosecution.


Another of the problems with trying to police the increasingly depraved sex lives of young adults under the influence of a seriously large number of power intoxicants.

I have no idea how you go about unwinding this or seeking "justice" within this mess & chaos.

And I don't think our actual Justice system is set up to deal with this kind of thing.

Its a problem with no easy solutions.

When did "consent" end...begin...stop...start again...etc.


You're asking the wrong question. The question is which prosecutor decides how they will handle this? As you know, a prosecutor can get an indictment on anything.

The standard is drunk women can not consent. You can argue "what about drunk men?" But it's an argument with our freedom attached.

Back to the text. If I'm not there, I'm more clear than if I'm there.


Incorrect. That standard in New York is not "drunk" but mental capacity and physical incapacitation. If you read the details there are plenty of instances of where she clearly makes rational decisions and when she declines sex acts the men comply. New York also distinguishes between the situation where a person is drugged (the date rape situation) vs. when a person voluntarily consumes alcohol.


That is why this was not prosecuted because it does not pass the basic legal standard.

This is another Duke Lacrosse Case, etc.


Would you place your nuts on the chopping ground based on this standard? These boys are about to be prosecuted.

You're defending guys who provide ketamine to an intoxicated woman in furtherance of sex.

Regardless of what you claim, it will not be the first time a man goes to jail thinking he was innocent.

Again, you're avoiding the simply question and deflecting. You stated incorrect information so just be a man ad admit it.

I do wonder sometimes are you just not super smart or you just live in a fantasy world. Here is another direct
question you will not answer: You posted - You're defending guys who provide ketamine to an intoxicated woman in furtherance of sex. I would ask you to post where I defending these guys, but we both know you cannot because you either lack the intelligence or just argue with straw men. This is why no one can have a conversation with you left-wing nut jobs because you make up your own reality.


You're absolutely defending boys who provide illegal drugs to a drunk woman. You're trying to make the argument that she voluntarily consumed alcohol. She likely did.

Until she didn't.

Then you tried to compare it to the Duke case.

This is nowhere near the same. This is "boys will be boys."

Bottom line, if you're not demanding better of your sons, shame on you. There is so much sober consenting ass on a college campus that this life changing carelessness is foolish.

What you guys are arguing, maybe that **** works for white boys. My boys are hearing that we don't get this luxury you're spouting about.

At what point did she stop voluntarily taking drugs and alcohol?

Why can't we just say no one in this situation was an angel, all of their actions disgust me, but I don't see anything criminal?

Texts from her to Guy #1 a few days later specifically state that nothing they did was illegal.



Even Sunny Hostin isn't jumping on this





Because that's not how it works. There's no scenario where I put ketamine on my dick and stick it in a drunk woman's mouth and it's ok. EVEN if she's consenting.



I mean I hope you can see that is a moral statement and view...not a legal one.

Not to mention it strange to hear the more liberal side make this moralistic argument.

I...as a social conservative...and happy to make that argument.

But its not a legal standard.

Depraved young people getting drunk, engaging in group sex, and doing God knows what else... is something I am against.....but its a moral argument. Not based on the legality of it.

I really don't understand this style of "neo-liberal puritanism"....that moves back and forth between celebrating depravity when it comes to homosexuality and other forms of "free love" & sex. But then becomes puritanical and wants legal consequences to the very activity that comes from the sexual revolution they champion.

Its all very logically confusing and strange.
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

secIf I send you a text that says free *****What's disturbing is that a text was sent to a group of men saying "free *****" and no one said "***" brothers. Instead, several of them showed up for some.




The "free *ussy" thing was the straw that broke the camels back for you?

Not the Ketamine snorting off peoples naked bodies?
The girl being "excited" about another guy joining in because for whatever strange reason this turned her on sexually that the two guys might be queers?
The other girl and several people have sex in the room of another guy who was his room but upset they were there and eventually kicked them out?

The whole things was depraved and stupid and out of control.

The "free *ussy" text is the least of it

Yes, that's the thing. Play with me.

I send you a text that says "Free *****" and you act appropriately. Do you:

1. Sort Ketamine off of a drunk woman?
2. Do you rape a drunk woman?
3. Is your face posted all over the internet?
4. Do you lose your job?
5. Are you charged with rape?

The text says everything about to happen ain't gonna be good. AND receiving it puts a responsibility on the other 43 men to act.

My family has put me in a few "group text" that I have on ignore. I've considered leaving them but didn't want to appear like an *******. I'm rethinking staying. From my perspective, this risk has shifted to all members in the group especially the ones who can't afford counsel.

The text is the primary evidence in the prosecution.


Another of the problems with trying to police the increasingly depraved sex lives of young adults under the influence of a seriously large number of power intoxicants.

I have no idea how you go about unwinding this or seeking "justice" within this mess & chaos.

And I don't think our actual Justice system is set up to deal with this kind of thing.

Its a problem with no easy solutions.

When did "consent" end...begin...stop...start again...etc.


You're asking the wrong question. The question is which prosecutor decides how they will handle this? As you know, a prosecutor can get an indictment on anything.

The standard is drunk women can not consent. You can argue "what about drunk men?" But it's an argument with our freedom attached.

Back to the text. If I'm not there, I'm more clear than if I'm there.


Incorrect. That standard in New York is not "drunk" but mental capacity and physical incapacitation. If you read the details there are plenty of instances of where she clearly makes rational decisions and when she declines sex acts the men comply. New York also distinguishes between the situation where a person is drugged (the date rape situation) vs. when a person voluntarily consumes alcohol.


That is why this was not prosecuted because it does not pass the basic legal standard.

This is another Duke Lacrosse Case, etc.


Would you place your nuts on the chopping ground based on this standard? These boys are about to be prosecuted.

You're defending guys who provide ketamine to an intoxicated woman in furtherance of sex.

Regardless of what you claim, it will not be the first time a man goes to jail thinking he was innocent.

Again, you're avoiding the simply question and deflecting. You stated incorrect information so just be a man ad admit it.

I do wonder sometimes are you just not super smart or you just live in a fantasy world. Here is another direct
question you will not answer: You posted - You're defending guys who provide ketamine to an intoxicated woman in furtherance of sex. I would ask you to post where I defending these guys, but we both know you cannot because you either lack the intelligence or just argue with straw men. This is why no one can have a conversation with you left-wing nut jobs because you make up your own reality.


You're absolutely defending boys who provide illegal drugs to a drunk woman. You're trying to make the argument that she voluntarily consumed alcohol. She likely did.

Until she didn't.

Then you tried to compare it to the Duke case.

This is nowhere near the same. This is "boys will be boys."

Bottom line, if you're not demanding better of your sons, shame on you. There is so much sober consenting ass on a college campus that this life changing carelessness is foolish.

What you guys are arguing, maybe that **** works for white boys. My boys are hearing that we don't get this luxury you're spouting about.

At what point did she stop voluntarily taking drugs and alcohol?

Why can't we just say no one in this situation was an angel, all of their actions disgust me, but I don't see anything criminal?

Texts from her to Guy #1 a few days later specifically state that nothing they did was illegal.



Even Sunny Hostin isn't jumping on this





Because that's not how it works. There's no scenario where I put ketamine on my dick and stick it in a drunk woman's mouth and it's ok. EVEN if she's consenting.



I mean I hope you can see that is a moral statement and view...not a legal one.

Not to mention it strange to hear the more liberal side make this moralistic argument.

I.... as a social conservative... and happy to make that argument.

But its not a legal standard.

Depraved young people getting drunk, engaging in group sex, and doing God knows what else... is something I am against.....but its a moral argument. Not based on the legality of it.

I really don't understand this style of "neo-liberal puritanism"....that moves back and forth between celebrating depravity with it comes to homosexuality and other forms of "free love" & sex. But then becomes puritanical and wants legal consequences to the very activity that comes from the sexual revolution they champion.

Its all very logically confusing and strange.

You are missing my point.

1. If you and I were in a group chat and we received those texts, you can be damn sure that I'd have told you to stay away from that sewer because I am responsible for you. (These men failed that responsibility).

2. If the world were fair, maybe no one would be charged.

Instead, we have people about to read the group texts and make a judgment on promising futures. It's not gonna go the way you guys are arguing.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mitch Blood Green said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

secIf I send you a text that says free *****What's disturbing is that a text was sent to a group of men saying "free *****" and no one said "***" brothers. Instead, several of them showed up for some.




The "free *ussy" thing was the straw that broke the camels back for you?

Not the Ketamine snorting off peoples naked bodies?
The girl being "excited" about another guy joining in because for whatever strange reason this turned her on sexually that the two guys might be queers?
The other girl and several people have sex in the room of another guy who was his room but upset they were there and eventually kicked them out?

The whole things was depraved and stupid and out of control.

The "free *ussy" text is the least of it

Yes, that's the thing. Play with me.

I send you a text that says "Free *****" and you act appropriately. Do you:

1. Sort Ketamine off of a drunk woman?
2. Do you rape a drunk woman?
3. Is your face posted all over the internet?
4. Do you lose your job?
5. Are you charged with rape?

The text says everything about to happen ain't gonna be good. AND receiving it puts a responsibility on the other 43 men to act.

My family has put me in a few "group text" that I have on ignore. I've considered leaving them but didn't want to appear like an *******. I'm rethinking staying. From my perspective, this risk has shifted to all members in the group especially the ones who can't afford counsel.

The text is the primary evidence in the prosecution.


Another of the problems with trying to police the increasingly depraved sex lives of young adults under the influence of a seriously large number of power intoxicants.

I have no idea how you go about unwinding this or seeking "justice" within this mess & chaos.

And I don't think our actual Justice system is set up to deal with this kind of thing.

Its a problem with no easy solutions.

When did "consent" end...begin...stop...start again...etc.


You're asking the wrong question. The question is which prosecutor decides how they will handle this? As you know, a prosecutor can get an indictment on anything.

The standard is drunk women can not consent. You can argue "what about drunk men?" But it's an argument with our freedom attached.

Back to the text. If I'm not there, I'm more clear than if I'm there.


Incorrect. That standard in New York is not "drunk" but mental capacity and physical incapacitation. If you read the details there are plenty of instances of where she clearly makes rational decisions and when she declines sex acts the men comply. New York also distinguishes between the situation where a person is drugged (the date rape situation) vs. when a person voluntarily consumes alcohol.


That is why this was not prosecuted because it does not pass the basic legal standard.

This is another Duke Lacrosse Case, etc.


Would you place your nuts on the chopping ground based on this standard? These boys are about to be prosecuted.

You're defending guys who provide ketamine to an intoxicated woman in furtherance of sex.

Regardless of what you claim, it will not be the first time a man goes to jail thinking he was innocent.

Again, you're avoiding the simply question and deflecting. You stated incorrect information so just be a man ad admit it.

I do wonder sometimes are you just not super smart or you just live in a fantasy world. Here is another direct
question you will not answer: You posted - You're defending guys who provide ketamine to an intoxicated woman in furtherance of sex. I would ask you to post where I defending these guys, but we both know you cannot because you either lack the intelligence or just argue with straw men. This is why no one can have a conversation with you left-wing nut jobs because you make up your own reality.


You're absolutely defending boys who provide illegal drugs to a drunk woman. You're trying to make the argument that she voluntarily consumed alcohol. She likely did.

Until she didn't.


Exactly why these cases are so hard to unwind and figure out.

She did voluntarily consume alcohol....long before she went to the Fraternity house.

[She was a 20-year-old Cornell undergraduate at the time.
Jane Doe said in her lawsuit that she was intoxicated during the alleged incident....
She said she left her sorority sisters after drinking that night and "stumbled alone" to the Chi Phi fraternity house in the city of Ithaca to see a male friend.]

She has been drinking and partying before she ever went there.

That is a fact

And to "see a male" friend is open ended....but having been a college guy myself that often is a euphemism for heading over to see a guy for late night post sorority event sex.

And we don't even know who exactly who brought the ketamine or who gave it to whom.....these are allegations in a law suit....not proven facts.

[The messages were reportedly sent two days after the alleged assault.
In one message, one of the men appeared to apologise for "how things went down".
He said his memory was "kinda fuzzy", and that he and another man felt bad for being too intoxicated to "shut it down and kick people out before it got way out of hand".
The woman in the text chain replied saying her memory was "super clouded too" and that they were all intoxicated.
She also wrote that "non(e) of the sexual stuff was illegal" and that she liked being with him and another man.
Doe suggested they smoke together again, but leave out "the extra five billion men and ketamine".]

I am not sure how we can look at this depraved tale of late night drunk & drugged fueled sex and come out with any morality judgement.....other than they should have not been doing any of it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cmpq0r1ljpqwo
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mitch Blood Green said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

secIf I send you a text that says free *****What's disturbing is that a text was sent to a group of men saying "free *****" and no one said "***" brothers. Instead, several of them showed up for some.




The "free *ussy" thing was the straw that broke the camels back for you?

Not the Ketamine snorting off peoples naked bodies?
The girl being "excited" about another guy joining in because for whatever strange reason this turned her on sexually that the two guys might be queers?
The other girl and several people have sex in the room of another guy who was his room but upset they were there and eventually kicked them out?

The whole things was depraved and stupid and out of control.

The "free *ussy" text is the least of it

Yes, that's the thing. Play with me.

I send you a text that says "Free *****" and you act appropriately. Do you:

1. Sort Ketamine off of a drunk woman?
2. Do you rape a drunk woman?
3. Is your face posted all over the internet?
4. Do you lose your job?
5. Are you charged with rape?

The text says everything about to happen ain't gonna be good. AND receiving it puts a responsibility on the other 43 men to act.

My family has put me in a few "group text" that I have on ignore. I've considered leaving them but didn't want to appear like an *******. I'm rethinking staying. From my perspective, this risk has shifted to all members in the group especially the ones who can't afford counsel.

The text is the primary evidence in the prosecution.


Another of the problems with trying to police the increasingly depraved sex lives of young adults under the influence of a seriously large number of power intoxicants.

I have no idea how you go about unwinding this or seeking "justice" within this mess & chaos.

And I don't think our actual Justice system is set up to deal with this kind of thing.

Its a problem with no easy solutions.

When did "consent" end...begin...stop...start again...etc.


You're asking the wrong question. The question is which prosecutor decides how they will handle this? As you know, a prosecutor can get an indictment on anything.

The standard is drunk women can not consent. You can argue "what about drunk men?" But it's an argument with our freedom attached.

Back to the text. If I'm not there, I'm more clear than if I'm there.


Incorrect. That standard in New York is not "drunk" but mental capacity and physical incapacitation. If you read the details there are plenty of instances of where she clearly makes rational decisions and when she declines sex acts the men comply. New York also distinguishes between the situation where a person is drugged (the date rape situation) vs. when a person voluntarily consumes alcohol.


That is why this was not prosecuted because it does not pass the basic legal standard.

This is another Duke Lacrosse Case, etc.


Would you place your nuts on the chopping ground based on this standard? These boys are about to be prosecuted.

You're defending guys who provide ketamine to an intoxicated woman in furtherance of sex.

Regardless of what you claim, it will not be the first time a man goes to jail thinking he was innocent.

Again, you're avoiding the simply question and deflecting. You stated incorrect information so just be a man ad admit it.

I do wonder sometimes are you just not super smart or you just live in a fantasy world. Here is another direct
question you will not answer: You posted - You're defending guys who provide ketamine to an intoxicated woman in furtherance of sex. I would ask you to post where I defending these guys, but we both know you cannot because you either lack the intelligence or just argue with straw men. This is why no one can have a conversation with you left-wing nut jobs because you make up your own reality.


You're absolutely defending boys who provide illegal drugs to a drunk woman. You're trying to make the argument that she voluntarily consumed alcohol. She likely did.

Until she didn't.

Then you tried to compare it to the Duke case.

This is nowhere near the same. This is "boys will be boys."

Bottom line, if you're not demanding better of your sons, shame on you. There is so much sober consenting ass on a college campus that this life changing carelessness is foolish.

What you guys are arguing, maybe that **** works for white boys. My boys are hearing that we don't get this luxury you're spouting about.

At what point did she stop voluntarily taking drugs and alcohol?

Why can't we just say no one in this situation was an angel, all of their actions disgust me, but I don't see anything criminal?

Texts from her to Guy #1 a few days later specifically state that nothing they did was illegal.



Even Sunny Hostin isn't jumping on this





Because that's not how it works. There's no scenario where I put ketamine on my dick and stick it in a drunk woman's mouth and it's ok. EVEN if she's consenting.



I mean I hope you can see that is a moral statement and view...not a legal one.

Not to mention it strange to hear the more liberal side make this moralistic argument.

I.... as a social conservative... and happy to make that argument.

But its not a legal standard.

Depraved young people getting drunk, engaging in group sex, and doing God knows what else... is something I am against.....but its a moral argument. Not based on the legality of it.

I really don't understand this style of "neo-liberal puritanism"....that moves back and forth between celebrating depravity with it comes to homosexuality and other forms of "free love" & sex. But then becomes puritanical and wants legal consequences to the very activity that comes from the sexual revolution they champion.

Its all very logically confusing and strange.

You are missing my point.

1. If you and I were in a group chat and we received those texts, you can be damn sure that I'd have told you to stay away from that sewer because I am responsible for you. (These men failed that responsibility).

2. If the world were fair, maybe no one would be charged.

Instead, we have people about to read the group texts and make a judgment on promising futures. It's not gonna go the way you guys are arguing.


Damn good advice.

Probably would have helped alot of these men not get into trouble and not get their fraternity shut down.

But its not a legal standard for which the State can come into this and get involved.

The power of the State can not come in and say "hey no group sex and booze and ketamine orgies"....I mean the State could pre-sexual revolution but not anymore.

This is the fruit of tearing down the old standard and the old law

Now we are left with nothing but the fig leaf of "consent".....well good luck keeping the raging Whale of human sexual depravity restrained/controlled with the thin net of "consent"
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

secIf I send you a text that says free *****What's disturbing is that a text was sent to a group of men saying "free *****" and no one said "***" brothers. Instead, several of them showed up for some.




The "free *ussy" thing was the straw that broke the camels back for you?

Not the Ketamine snorting off peoples naked bodies?
The girl being "excited" about another guy joining in because for whatever strange reason this turned her on sexually that the two guys might be queers?
The other girl and several people have sex in the room of another guy who was his room but upset they were there and eventually kicked them out?

The whole things was depraved and stupid and out of control.

The "free *ussy" text is the least of it

Yes, that's the thing. Play with me.

I send you a text that says "Free *****" and you act appropriately. Do you:

1. Sort Ketamine off of a drunk woman?
2. Do you rape a drunk woman?
3. Is your face posted all over the internet?
4. Do you lose your job?
5. Are you charged with rape?

The text says everything about to happen ain't gonna be good. AND receiving it puts a responsibility on the other 43 men to act.

My family has put me in a few "group text" that I have on ignore. I've considered leaving them but didn't want to appear like an *******. I'm rethinking staying. From my perspective, this risk has shifted to all members in the group especially the ones who can't afford counsel.

The text is the primary evidence in the prosecution.


Another of the problems with trying to police the increasingly depraved sex lives of young adults under the influence of a seriously large number of power intoxicants.

I have no idea how you go about unwinding this or seeking "justice" within this mess & chaos.

And I don't think our actual Justice system is set up to deal with this kind of thing.

Its a problem with no easy solutions.

When did "consent" end...begin...stop...start again...etc.


You're asking the wrong question. The question is which prosecutor decides how they will handle this? As you know, a prosecutor can get an indictment on anything.

The standard is drunk women can not consent. You can argue "what about drunk men?" But it's an argument with our freedom attached.

Back to the text. If I'm not there, I'm more clear than if I'm there.


Incorrect. That standard in New York is not "drunk" but mental capacity and physical incapacitation. If you read the details there are plenty of instances of where she clearly makes rational decisions and when she declines sex acts the men comply. New York also distinguishes between the situation where a person is drugged (the date rape situation) vs. when a person voluntarily consumes alcohol.


That is why this was not prosecuted because it does not pass the basic legal standard.

This is another Duke Lacrosse Case, etc.


Would you place your nuts on the chopping ground based on this standard? These boys are about to be prosecuted.

You're defending guys who provide ketamine to an intoxicated woman in furtherance of sex.

Regardless of what you claim, it will not be the first time a man goes to jail thinking he was innocent.

Again, you're avoiding the simply question and deflecting. You stated incorrect information so just be a man ad admit it.

I do wonder sometimes are you just not super smart or you just live in a fantasy world. Here is another direct
question you will not answer: You posted - You're defending guys who provide ketamine to an intoxicated woman in furtherance of sex. I would ask you to post where I defending these guys, but we both know you cannot because you either lack the intelligence or just argue with straw men. This is why no one can have a conversation with you left-wing nut jobs because you make up your own reality.


You're absolutely defending boys who provide illegal drugs to a drunk woman. You're trying to make the argument that she voluntarily consumed alcohol. She likely did.

Until she didn't.

Then you tried to compare it to the Duke case.

This is nowhere near the same. This is "boys will be boys."

Bottom line, if you're not demanding better of your sons, shame on you. There is so much sober consenting ass on a college campus that this life changing carelessness is foolish.

What you guys are arguing, maybe that **** works for white boys. My boys are hearing that we don't get this luxury you're spouting about.

At what point did she stop voluntarily taking drugs and alcohol?

Why can't we just say no one in this situation was an angel, all of their actions disgust me, but I don't see anything criminal?

Texts from her to Guy #1 a few days later specifically state that nothing they did was illegal.



Even Sunny Hostin isn't jumping on this





Because that's not how it works. There's no scenario where I put ketamine on my dick and stick it in a drunk woman's mouth and it's ok. EVEN if she's consenting.



I mean I hope you can see that is a moral statement and view...not a legal one.

Not to mention it strange to hear the more liberal side make this moralistic argument.

I.... as a social conservative... and happy to make that argument.

But its not a legal standard.

Depraved young people getting drunk, engaging in group sex, and doing God knows what else... is something I am against.....but its a moral argument. Not based on the legality of it.

I really don't understand this style of "neo-liberal puritanism"....that moves back and forth between celebrating depravity with it comes to homosexuality and other forms of "free love" & sex. But then becomes puritanical and wants legal consequences to the very activity that comes from the sexual revolution they champion.

Its all very logically confusing and strange.

I'll take a stab at trying to give an explanation ...

Radical leftists do not have a moral framework. If they make a moral judgement, it causes all kinds of other challenges for their fragile world view. That forces them to really bunker down on the legal argument even if they're totally wrong and irrational - the response will be disinformation or straw men. Their legal arguments are not framed in the law, truth, or reason but identity politics. And of course they sort of reveal inadvertently their inherent misogyny by claiming women are not capable of independently managing their lives, sexually or otherwise. They lack the framework to condemn the behavior of everyone involved while acknowledging there was no crime based on the evidence released ... not something they are capable of doing.
Wangchung
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Just because you and I wouldn't do it doesn't make it rape.

Again, when did she stop voluntarily taking drugs and alcohol and when did she stop consenting to sex?

She has specifically stated that she was aware of everything she was taking, was more coherent than some of the boys, and when she did say "no" or "I'm done", the boys responded.

You can not like it all you want and we can all encourage our boys to not participate in such things. But not liking something doesn't make it a crime.

What you're missing is that you don't always get to decide. There are thousands of guys in jail for rape that they didn't commit. Many based on eyewitness testimony and hidden DNA evidence. Being innocent doesn't mean you're free.

These guys opened themselves up to the support of cats on 365 while they're in jail.
Correct. Get your friends and self AWAY from situations like that. She might be saying yes at the time but later she will be regretting her decisions.
Our vibrations were getting nasty. But why? I was puzzled, frustrated... Had we deteriorated to the level of dumb beasts?

Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wangchung said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Just because you and I wouldn't do it doesn't make it rape.

Again, when did she stop voluntarily taking drugs and alcohol and when did she stop consenting to sex?

She has specifically stated that she was aware of everything she was taking, was more coherent than some of the boys, and when she did say "no" or "I'm done", the boys responded.

You can not like it all you want and we can all encourage our boys to not participate in such things. But not liking something doesn't make it a crime.

What you're missing is that you don't always get to decide. There are thousands of guys in jail for rape that they didn't commit. Many based on eyewitness testimony and hidden DNA evidence. Being innocent doesn't mean you're free.

These guys opened themselves up to the support of cats on 365 while they're in jail.
Correct. Get your friends and self AWAY from situations like that. She might be saying yes at the time but later she will be regretting her decisions.


This situation has reminded me of a few friends at a house in Waco in 1987. One guy was mad at me for forcing him out of a room with an underage girl.

Today, he's extremely successful in Dallas. (I mean extremely).


I'm not arguing right or wrong or consent. I'm saying when someone else is judging, it's their interpretation.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Whatever the truth…this is gonna get circus level quick

Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:

Whatever the truth…this is gonna get circus level quick



Sometimes the jokes write themselves.

It's funny how many times Democrat imbeciles run to fake news and they never learn.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mitch Blood Green said:

Wangchung said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Just because you and I wouldn't do it doesn't make it rape.

Again, when did she stop voluntarily taking drugs and alcohol and when did she stop consenting to sex?

She has specifically stated that she was aware of everything she was taking, was more coherent than some of the boys, and when she did say "no" or "I'm done", the boys responded.

You can not like it all you want and we can all encourage our boys to not participate in such things. But not liking something doesn't make it a crime.

What you're missing is that you don't always get to decide. There are thousands of guys in jail for rape that they didn't commit. Many based on eyewitness testimony and hidden DNA evidence. Being innocent doesn't mean you're free.

These guys opened themselves up to the support of cats on 365 while they're in jail.

Correct. Get your friends and self AWAY from situations like that. She might be saying yes at the time but later she will be regretting her decisions.


This situation has reminded me of a few friends at a house in Waco in 1987. One guy was mad at me for forcing him out of a room with an underage girl.

Today, he's extremely successful in Dallas. (I mean extremely).


I'm not arguing right or wrong or consent. I'm saying when someone else is judging, it's their interpretation.

It's amazing how after all these years you still regret he did not participate in your gang bang.
Forest Bueller III
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Harrison Bergeron said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Redbrickbear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

secIf I send you a text that says free *****What's disturbing is that a text was sent to a group of men saying "free *****" and no one said "***" brothers. Instead, several of them showed up for some.




The "free *ussy" thing was the straw that broke the camels back for you?

Not the Ketamine snorting off peoples naked bodies?
The girl being "excited" about another guy joining in because for whatever strange reason this turned her on sexually that the two guys might be queers?
The other girl and several people have sex in the room of another guy who was his room but upset they were there and eventually kicked them out?

The whole things was depraved and stupid and out of control.

The "free *ussy" text is the least of it

Yes, that's the thing. Play with me.

I send you a text that says "Free *****" and you act appropriately. Do you:

1. Sort Ketamine off of a drunk woman?
2. Do you rape a drunk woman?
3. Is your face posted all over the internet?
4. Do you lose your job?
5. Are you charged with rape?

The text says everything about to happen ain't gonna be good. AND receiving it puts a responsibility on the other 43 men to act.

My family has put me in a few "group text" that I have on ignore. I've considered leaving them but didn't want to appear like an *******. I'm rethinking staying. From my perspective, this risk has shifted to all members in the group especially the ones who can't afford counsel.

The text is the primary evidence in the prosecution.


Another of the problems with trying to police the increasingly depraved sex lives of young adults under the influence of a seriously large number of power intoxicants.

I have no idea how you go about unwinding this or seeking "justice" within this mess & chaos.

And I don't think our actual Justice system is set up to deal with this kind of thing.

Its a problem with no easy solutions.

When did "consent" end...begin...stop...start again...etc.


You're asking the wrong question. The question is which prosecutor decides how they will handle this? As you know, a prosecutor can get an indictment on anything.

The standard is drunk women can not consent. You can argue "what about drunk men?" But it's an argument with our freedom attached.

Back to the text. If I'm not there, I'm more clear than if I'm there.


Incorrect. That standard in New York is not "drunk" but mental capacity and physical incapacitation. If you read the details there are plenty of instances of where she clearly makes rational decisions and when she declines sex acts the men comply. New York also distinguishes between the situation where a person is drugged (the date rape situation) vs. when a person voluntarily consumes alcohol.


That is why this was not prosecuted because it does not pass the basic legal standard.

This is another Duke Lacrosse Case, etc.


Would you place your nuts on the chopping ground based on this standard? These boys are about to be prosecuted.

You're defending guys who provide ketamine to an intoxicated woman in furtherance of sex.

Regardless of what you claim, it will not be the first time a man goes to jail thinking he was innocent.

Again, you're avoiding the simply question and deflecting. You stated incorrect information so just be a man ad admit it.

I do wonder sometimes are you just not super smart or you just live in a fantasy world. Here is another direct
question you will not answer: You posted - You're defending guys who provide ketamine to an intoxicated woman in furtherance of sex. I would ask you to post where I defending these guys, but we both know you cannot because you either lack the intelligence or just argue with straw men. This is why no one can have a conversation with you left-wing nut jobs because you make up your own reality. I hate to sound like a donkey, but you just literally make up stuff and then argue against it.

She was the least intoxicated by far. One guy threw up another passed out, and as soon as he came back to, she rode him for more sex. This is a bad situation all around. Sounds like one of the guys got raped.
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

Wangchung said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Just because you and I wouldn't do it doesn't make it rape.

Again, when did she stop voluntarily taking drugs and alcohol and when did she stop consenting to sex?

She has specifically stated that she was aware of everything she was taking, was more coherent than some of the boys, and when she did say "no" or "I'm done", the boys responded.

You can not like it all you want and we can all encourage our boys to not participate in such things. But not liking something doesn't make it a crime.

What you're missing is that you don't always get to decide. There are thousands of guys in jail for rape that they didn't commit. Many based on eyewitness testimony and hidden DNA evidence. Being innocent doesn't mean you're free.

These guys opened themselves up to the support of cats on 365 while they're in jail.

Correct. Get your friends and self AWAY from situations like that. She might be saying yes at the time but later she will be regretting her decisions.


This situation has reminded me of a few friends at a house in Waco in 1987. One guy was mad at me for forcing him out of a room with an underage girl.

Today, he's extremely successful in Dallas. (I mean extremely).


I'm not arguing right or wrong or consent. I'm saying when someone else is judging, it's their interpretation.

It's amazing how after all these years you still regret he did not participate in your gang bang.


Trust me when I tell you, I turn down more quality than you've ever had.

And when I bump? Let's just say you can only eat so much *****zengruben.
trey3216
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

I'm with Mitch, someone should have protected her. Young men need to do better.

Do women not have agency? Are they free-willed or not? Are they able to make decisions or not?

Why can't both young men AND young women need to do better?

Should someone have protected the boys? By her own account, some were more inebriated than she was and she had to *help them*. Did that "young man" need protection?

Because it's not how it works. That it should isn't helping the guys losing their jobs.

I'm reminded that Tamir Rice was a 12-year-old boy playing with a toy gun in the park, and people blamed his parents for his death.

Can you answer the questions?

In the real world, rape is decided by the prosecutor.

So, no, you won't answer the questions.

I will point to this case and continue to raise my son AND my daughter to make good decisions and there are sometimes consequences to such such actions. Still doesn't make what happened a crime.

I answered your question. You don't like the answer. You're asking where is her reponsibility in me putting ketamine on my dick and sticking it in her mouth. Her responsibility lies with the decision of the prosecutor.
Her responsibility is putting it in her mouth knowing what's on it.
Mr. Treehorn treats objects like women, man.
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
El Oso said:

I'm not sure what the big deal is everyone is making out of this. According to the DA, the victim's initial sworn police statement did not explicitly allege she was drugged against her will or gang-raped, so the case never went to trial.

According to statements from the fraternity's national leadership, the Cornell chapter voted unanimously to expel two of the seven members three days after the initial 2024 police report. The university also later barred the Chi Phi chapter from campus.

The victim recently filed a civil suit. One of the boy's has an attorney who says nothing in the civil suit is different than the original police report. However, the NY AG is investigating the school and Cornell is absolutely taking it on the chin in the court of public opinion right now.

What am I missing here that shows Cornell did not investigate the original claim properly?


Duke Lacrosse.

#Metoo

#Trustallwomen

#Lemmegetpaid

Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
trey3216 said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Mitch Blood Green said:

90sBear said:

Tempus Edax Rerum said:

I'm with Mitch, someone should have protected her. Young men need to do better.

Do women not have agency? Are they free-willed or not? Are they able to make decisions or not?

Why can't both young men AND young women need to do better?

Should someone have protected the boys? By her own account, some were more inebriated than she was and she had to *help them*. Did that "young man" need protection?

Because it's not how it works. That it should isn't helping the guys losing their jobs.

I'm reminded that Tamir Rice was a 12-year-old boy playing with a toy gun in the park, and people blamed his parents for his death.

Can you answer the questions?

In the real world, rape is decided by the prosecutor.

So, no, you won't answer the questions.

I will point to this case and continue to raise my son AND my daughter to make good decisions and there are sometimes consequences to such such actions. Still doesn't make what happened a crime.

I answered your question. You don't like the answer. You're asking where is her reponsibility in me putting ketamine on my dick and sticking it in her mouth. Her responsibility lies with the decision of the prosecutor.

Her responsibility is putting it in her mouth knowing what's on it.

Coeds and Trans love Ketapen.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I love how the LWNJs continue to create realities to suit whatever point their trying to make ... one minute women are equal to men and helping them is paternalistic and the next minute their helpless and without agency. Always fun to follow the moving definitions and positions.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
[The Cornell Rape Case:

There's a huge story about an alleged gang rape carried out by fraternity men at Cornell against an undergraduate woman.

The New York governor has handed the case to the state's Attorney General, and faulted the local DA for not filing rape charges against the men. The NYT reports, though, that the woman, "Jane Doe" (though she has been identified subsequently, as have her alleged attackers) had a drug-fueled threesome with a number of frat brothers.

Here's the thing: she consented, and believed at first she had consented. The Times, which went through the documents, reports:
Quote:

Since the evening that began on Oct. 19, 2024, Jane Doe had recounted the night's events to her roommates without identifying herself as a rape victim. She had exchanged friendly text messages with men she would later accuse of assault. She had heard uncharitable appraisals of herself from undergraduate gossips.
Then she read the words.
"That's the first time I had ever heard the narrative change that I wasn't a ***** and that I was assaulted," Jane Doe told investigators, according to documents from a university review of the accusations obtained by The New York Times.

After the night in question, Jane Doe made the walk of shame:
Quote:

Around 11:15 a.m., she said, Jane Doe arrived home, still in her "big boots and small dress" from the night before, according to the roommate. She had consumed ketamine and had sex with multiple men, she told her two roommates. One roommate told investigators that Jane Doe did not use the word "rape" or "assault" yet.
The next day, on Oct. 21, Jane Doe went to her "big sister" a woman designated as a mentor at Cornell's Tri Delta sorority and told her there were rumors circulating that she was a "****." The big sister, a junior at Cornell, told investigators that Jane Doe added with a laugh that "unfortunately they are true."

One of her sex partners texted her:
Quote:

"I just wanted to apologize for how things went down the other night," Mr. Newell wrote. He then said that both he and Matthew Ingalls, another of the men she would later accuse of assault, both felt terrible for being too under the influence of drugs and alcohol to "shut it down and kick people out before it got way out of hand."
Jane Doe replied and reassured him.
"At the end of the day non of the sexual stuff was illegal and honestly i really liked being w u and matt," she wrote.

This Jane Doe didn't decided that she had been sexually assaulted until after other girls started saying she was a ****. That, and she was disinvited from a later party at the frat house:
Quote:

At Chi Phi, the fraternity was preparing for a Halloween party, and Jane Doe was eager to attend. Text messages included in the investigation show Mr. Ingalls assuring Jane Doe that he and other fraternity members wanted her to be there.
"chi phi is your house and you are welcome here," he wrote, relaying the views of the fraternity's president, who was not among those accused of sexual assault.
"thank u i really appreciate that," Jane Doe responded. "<3 i'll bring my cigs tomorrow"
But then Jane Doe received a phone call from the fraternity's president, according to the text messages.
She was disinvited from the party. It was for her own good, he said.
Jane Doe sent a biting text to Mr. Ingalls.
"I knew this was going to happen," she wrote. "The woman will always get the short end of the stick. Yall aren't my friends. Yall are covering your asses."

So, it seems, she filed charges against the men she willingly gang-banged in an effort to repair her reputation, and to pay them back for disinviting her to the party.

This story is disgusting all the way around. These (no doubt) porn-addled men gang-banged a young woman, the sleazebags. But ---but! --by her own words at the time, she consented, did not consider it rape, and enjoyed it. No wonder the DA didn't file charges. But now these men, sleazy as they may be, face criminal investigation for something all evidence shows the girl wanted to do, and enjoyed.

A few years ago, one of my readers wrote about the crisis her undergraduate son was in -- this, during the #MeToo years. She told me he had had sex with a girl on campus, but did not want to date her. She paid him back by accusing him later --later! --of sexual assault. In the view of my correspondent, this was 100 percent payback to her son for not wanting to be his sex partner's boyfriend. But this was #MeToo time, and everybody believed women, as a matter of course. The young man's life was being ruined on the say-so of this vengeful young woman.

I recall my 1980s college days. There was lots of binge drinking, by men and women, and lots of sex. I participated in it too, and I'm damn sure not proud of it. But we were all drunk. This was a normal Friday and Saturday night at LSU in the 1980s. There were mornings I woke up in bed with a girl, not quite sure how I had gotten there; she felt the same way. We were ashamed, but we were adults, and this was the (bad) choice we made. Were this 30 years later, I would have had to fear being accused of sexual assault. No wonder young men are afraid of young women.

To be very, very clear: I am not defending the acts of these young men. I would be ashamed if one of them were my son, behaving like such a dirtbag. What I am defending, though, is these men against the charge of rape. What they did was morally wrong --but on evidence presented so far, it wasn't rape. We cannot have a legal system if it's up to women to decide whether or not they were raped, after time has passed, and they reached the conclusion that it's to their advantage to rewrite history.

If this goes to criminal trial, I presume they will win (though with female jurors in the post-Lindsay Clancy era, who knows?), but even if they do, the trial will cost them a fortune, and ruin their names. Good luck trying to get a job with that on your record.

Now that Gov. Hochul has decided to politicize this as a feminist, it seems that this has the potential to turn into another Lindsay Clancy case: one that drives another savage wedge between men and women.] -Rod Dreher
Forest Bueller III
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron said:

I love how the LWNJs continue to create realities to suit whatever point their trying to make ... one minute women are equal to men and helping them is paternalistic and the next minute their helpless and without agency. Always fun to follow the moving definitions and positions.

Women always infantilize themselves whenever sexual issues come up.

Whether a teacher rapes a student or a coed gets all wild and then later regrets it.

They act as if they are young children who don't have agency over their personal actions.
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is another Duke Lacrosse lynch mob.

Basically 25% of all college students could be charged.
Forest Bueller III
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Also, don't think the timing of this lawsuit is totally spontaneous.

October right before the midterm elections and politicians have already moved into it.

A young woman foolishly choses to engage in orgy sex with guys and it's their fault.

A woman brutally murders her children and somehow, it's Patrick's fault.

And in both cases hoards liberal of women activate and make it a cause celeb situation.



Forest Bueller III
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Mattress Girl" gained a national following and was allowed to prance around the University with a mattress all the time often accompanied by other girls prancing around with mattresses, she even carried a mattress across the stage when she graduated. Of course, she claimed she was raped when in fact she was the pursuer.

The fact is she lied she was a creeper and caused great harm to the dude she accused.


Quote:

"Investigations by both Columbia University and the New York Police Department (NYPD) cleared Nungesser of wrongdoing. Text messages between Paul and Emma show Emma as the pursuer the astoundingly creepy pursuer, who sent Paul explicit and pleading messages."

She did this crap for years, knowing full well she was the actual assailant if there was one.

Where she should have been was prison.
Mitch Blood Green
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Forest Bueller III said:

Also, don't think the timing of this lawsuit is totally spontaneous.

October right before the midterm elections and politicians have already moved into it.

A young woman foolishly choses to engage in orgy sex with guys and it's their fault.

A woman brutally murders her children and somehow, it's Patrick's fault.

And in both cases hoards liberal of women activate and make it a cause celeb situation.






Every man would have an easier life if our wives said what they mean. When we say "I don't care where we go" I usually don't. When my spouse says she doesn't care? There's only six possible choice. None are named Applebees or Popeyes.
Redbrickbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Harrison Bergeron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Redbrickbear said:



I heard an interview with one of the attorneys and she mentioned this.

Goes to affirm the university kangaroo courts have more kangaroos than we thought.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.