<p>I did not either. </p>
<p>
I believe a full bladder causes erection. Not really sure the cause of the early morning rise but it’s normal and doesn’t require the presence of a female.</p>
<p>Women are telling men about erections? :)</p>
<p>If I understood the WP correctly, Jackie went on a date with Drew, a junior UVA chemistry student. It turns out, Drew wasn’t a UVA student at all. The photograph of her Sept. 28th date was texted to one of the friends. Drew’s photos were actually Jackie’s HS classmate except he was never a UVA student and was never in the area during the time in question.
Can anyone explain to me how they interpret the paragraph quoted above? Does this mean Randall thinks the mysterious freshman student was Jackie’s date and not Drew? </p>
<p>While the IFC is doing a thorough self-examination, the members of the One Less and similar groups need to do the same. </p>
<p>Krillies: That part of the article made it sound as though Jackie was trying to get Randall to take an interest in her. Which may explain the whole thing. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, Randall is the mysterious freshman student that ‘Drew’ is referencing. “Drew” texts Randall that he (Drew) is jealous of him because Jackie likes Randall better than him… </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Smart move on their part. It would be nuts to say otherwise. </p>
<p>Having dealt with enough emergency PR situations, a basic rule is until all data is in, one gains nothing questioning the other side’s accusations because you have no data to present to the contrary. That is why this trial by media is so destructive. It provides a forum to hit people who cannot respond back because there is nothing to respond with, as of yet.</p>
<p>Think of it this way - what if I came to your neighbor as a scientist and starting telling you and the media that I tested your water supply and it has these dangerous bacteria in it and do not drink or use it. And the bacteria I mention is serious hard to detect stuff that is rarely ever tested for. What is the water company to do? Well, it can say nothing, except plead ignorance and tacitly agree in some form that there might be that bacteria in the water.</p>
<p>It should do this until it does its own investigation and gets its own tests back and it turns out to be false. But it could also be true, so in the interim the water company can only say it was not aware, it might be true, and wait till the tests are back. However, the water company is in no position to say the bacteria are not there. </p>
<p>In the IFC case , given the politics, it’s best to support Jackie either way because either she was raped or she is majorly troubled. In any event, her life is in shambles. Best move on and say you believe her until the investigation is complete. And even if it turns out she lied, the IFC should issue a statement that they hope she gets the helps she needs. And if she were raped at a frat, then they support her and a deal with the frat. Either way, the IFC’s best position is to just publicly support her, even they are internally mad as hell.</p>
<p>Yes that is exactly right from a PR perspective. </p>
<p>If I were an investigator on this case, I would question the IFC president to discover the basis of his “belief.” It is more logical to me that he should be representing those he was elected to represent, not Jackie. I can understand the PR angle, but he could have phrased it in a way that supports the fraternities’ interests, not the non-Greek individual whose story is falling apart.</p>
<p>
This “rapists gonna rape” idea is a false dichotomy, IMO. It assumes that there are no opportunistic rapists whose opportunities could be limited, and it also assumes there are no “cultural” rapists, for lack of a better term, who come to believe that their actions are not rape because of the culture that surrounds them, but who, if they were convinced their actions were rape, would stop doing them.</p>
<p>We might not be able to target the sociopaths who don’t care if they are doing wrong, other than to limit their opportunities however we can. But we can target the guys who think what they are doing is acceptable, when actually it’s clearly rape. We can target the guys who think that if she says No, they should just continue because she really secretly wants it. We can go after the guys who think it’s acceptable to “have sex” with women who are unconscious. </p>
<p>I also think colleges can try to establish community norms. JHS writes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the same way that colleges are trying to establish community norms that bystanders ought to intervene when they see rapey scenarios unfolding in front of them, I think colleges would do well to establish a community cultural norm that taking advantage of person’s drunken state to have sex with them when you think they’ll regret it in the morning is a scuzzy thing to do. It’s not illegal, it shouldn’t be a subject of college discipline, but it’s something decent people ought to avoid. </p>
<p>The Daily Mail isn’t the most unimpeachable source. But assuming that the IFC President said what they’re reporting he has said, maybe he thinks that a fraternity man raped Jackie because he knows that a rape happened and who did it. </p>
<p>The statement, to me, sounds like he is throwing some particular person overboard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is why I referred the initial poster to ask a doctor, as there is more than one aspect to the statement that was inaccurate. </p>
<p>There are multiple ways and conditions, which cause the arousal condition and great fear and incapacitation do not shut off those pathways, so it makes no medical sense to say men can’t be aroused under those conditions. </p>
<p>As for you early morning example, the reason is rather simple - dreaming.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, that is how I read it. But you are right about the source; maybe that is how they want us to read it.</p>
<p>Bay , the university, IFC, etc.were thrust into a PR nightmare from the day one with this article, which has been largely discredited . As a Virginia resident and taxpayer, I sure wish Erdeley had picked on her own private school or one of any number of schools she could have used. Or just kept things less sensational from the get go and just focused on the issue in general.</p>
<p>I think the fraternities and sororities at UVa, under guidance I’m sure, have done an admirable job handling the fallout. In my mind, it speaks well to those young men and women.</p>
<p>I am not sure how you discourage toxic sex. I think kids who were taught that one’s body is a gift of oneself to another would have an easier time avoiding toxic sex. Those kids would know that the sexual act is a genital expression of a loving and respectful relationship. The hookup culture is the exact opposite. </p>
<p>^^ The frats and sororities do have good a PR team.</p>
<p>As a Greek and family of 100% Greeks, I don’t want Jackie’s assaulter to be a fraternity man. But I am trying my best to remain objective by considering all of the published evidence and information.</p>
<p>The Daily Mail says IFC President Tommy Reid says he believes Jackie was attacked by a fraternity member. That doesn’t sound like PR goo-goo speak to me. If Reid did not believe Jackie was attacked by a frat member, or if he wasn’t sure, he could easily say something like, “The IFC is committed to a full and impartial evidence of these serious allegations, wherever they may lead. We unequivocally condemn rape, and we will work our hardest to make sure our campus is free of these predators and malefactors, blah blah blah” without committing himself.</p>