Cornell 7

Alcoholism definitely the cause for many infractions.

The problem isnt alcohol. It's that these individuals disregarded the most intimate and fundamental boundary. ...and at least 56 others did nothing to stop it.

Yes, Abraham was off his head and look where that led us.

Might have been altitude sickness but I'm pretty sure that it was substance abuse.

Yes, 56 men should have stopped a woman from getting Drunk. And should have thrown a Hijab over her head while they were at it.

RemyBrown wrote:

Hopefully SkyWalker and I can come to a rare moment of agreement here.

Awww, isn't that sweet, Pumpkin is obsessed with me.

Sorry Pumpkin, I thought you knew, but I'm married...that plus I'd rather have alone time with a grizzly bear.

Rent will always lose to a bear.

Yes, 56 men should have stopped a woman from getting Drunk. And should have thrown a Hijab over her head while they were at it.

Imagine thinking the problem is her getting drunk, and not the 7 men who assaulted her or the others who treated her trauma like a spectator sport.

Your non-skepticism of this obviously manufactured outrage story is legendary.

If you think it's normal for a woman to text "I love you" to a rapist the morning after, your skepticism is near nil.

Imagine thinking the problem is her getting drunk, and not the 7 men who assaulted her or the others who treated her trauma like a spectator sport.

Imagine thinking society can exist with women having the freedom to take whatever drugs they want and then expect men to take responsibility for her choices at the same time. That's why the Hijab will make a comeback. It's the same shit as Lindsey Clancy. No accountability for women; blame the men. At some point, the men will forcefully take that freedom away since they already have the responsibility and accountability thrust upon them.

"The transcript shows she distinguished the initial sexual activity from what she says happened later, and when asked whether she was OK with the initial encounter, she said, "Yeah, as much as I can be because, again, I was super drunk when I got there ... But I was pretty OK with all of this."

Jane Doe added, according to the transcript, "And then, of course, I was being hit at the same time. Physically hit very, very hard."

According to the transcript, she said she didn't remember the end of the night "where I was raped" and didn't know how many people had sex with her.

When describing what happened later in the night, the transcript says Jane Doe said, "I can say with 100% confidence I was raped."

[Link]

Imagine thinking society can exist with women having the freedom to take whatever drugs they want and then expect men to take responsibility for her choices at the same time.

How about men taking responsibility for their own choices?

So no skepticism of the "I love you." texts. Not saying she meant it when she texted that, but it sure draws her credibility into question.

What actually probably and likely happened was the girl was faced with an impossible dillemma supported by those texts.

Either be branded as a truthful drunken slut, or be branded as a deceitful victim. Both are bad, but her female friends definitely encouraged her to choose the latter, since we live in a zeitgeist where you can be held responsible for anything and everything as long as you were born with a penis. To go from "I love you" to ...18 DAYS LATER... "You raped me" screams of deception.

Because unlike you, I don't believe all women or all things. I am skeptical.

Do men have a right to a woman's body if she is incapacitated in their presence?

The case is more about "Is an incapacitated man responsible for what happens to a woman if a woman incapacitates herself"

Because if that is in any way, shape, or form true, then you are headed to a Hijab society.

 if she is incapacitated 

Your deliberate wording absolves the woman of all responsibility. Hence, Hijabistan is in the future for Americans

It was a simple question. I dont think anyone denies she agreed to have sex with certain individuals. The problem is that individuals she didnt agree to had sex with her. So, is there a right to a woman's body if they are incapacitated or otherwise unable to consent?

they are incapacitated

Again with the hypothetical wording...

Because there is a huge responsibility question, legally speaking, as to who did the incapacitating. Ignoring the point doesn't make it go away. When both parties self-incapacitate, assigning malice becomes extremely difficult without cultural bias tipping the scales one way.

The problem is that individuals she didnt agree to had sex with her.

She named all 7 as rapists or sexual assaulters, so that's another hypothetical you want me to answer? Do you even care about real situations?

as to who did the incapacitating

'In and out of awareness' is incapacitated. Who did it is irrelevant to the question.

When both parties self-incapacitate, assigning malice becomes extremely difficult without cultural bias tipping the scales one way.

The 'incapacitation' of the accused is debatable. None are reported to have been in and out of awareness. ...which makes guilt obvious and one-sided.

She named all 7 as rapists or sexual assaulters,

And? Are you suggesting her naming them somehow means she consented? That doesnt follow.

Since you're having difficulty, the answer is 'no'. Consent requires a minimum level of mental acuity, and someone in and out of consciousness doesn't have it.

And? Are you suggesting her naming them somehow means she consented? That doesnt follow.

I'm suggesting that after 18 days from the "i love you" texts, she decided to lie.

Again, unlike you, I am skeptical.

Since you're having difficulty, the answer is 'no'

To a hypothetical, which doesn't apply to this case where both parties are likely self-impaired. Grats. Cause owning people is more important than the truth to some unskeptical people.

 Consent requires a minimum level of mental acuity, and someone in and out of consciousness doesn't have it.

So does malice.

Jonathan Newell: reportedly described fuzzy memory and said he couldn’t remember part of the encounter. www.the-sun.com

Matthew Ingalls: reportedly told investigators he was too intoxicated to consent and later alleged Doe assaulted him while he was incapacitated.

You think they would behave differently if they're sober?

Maybe, but ultimately everyone is responsible for themselves even when they make poor choices. "I was drunk" is no justification for rape.

Sober people fear consequences.

Yes, some do.

Is there anything about this case that you are skeptical about? Are you just a pretender?

I'm happy to acknowledge you're expertise in cynicism. Skepticism? ... no so much.

The bottom line is that a woman agreed to X with specific individuals and not X happened with other individuals. There are legal nuances that will have to be sorted out to determine who did what and how culpable everyone is. What is clear to me is that the woman is a victim.

Now you can try to argue she's not a victim because she said 'I love you' or 'she is trying to protect her reputation' or whatever else. The problem is that she is very much following a known pathway for processing trauma. You're inability to understand this doesn't make her a liar.

So does malice.

Malice isnt legally required for sexual assault/rape to have occurred.

"I was drunk" is not an ethical justification for rape, but it's a catalyst for rape.

Ban alcohol's existence at all colleges and problem solved.

That seems extreme and difficult to enforce. I think this is akin to banning sex on college campuses - its unlikely to succeed.

So no, you have zero skepticism regarding the allegations of this case.

Many others do, so you are in the minority.

The fact remains that women do often lie. Especially when faced with a dilemma of being labeled either a truthful slut or a lying victim. Especially as that dichotomy was outlined in Jane Doe's own texts. Believing all women only when they say what you want to hear is disingenuous at best.

To have zero skepticism of these allegations is ignorance, whether willful or not.