<p>This isn’t helicoptering campus kids, that’s just another tactic to stretch the argument. And explaining it with anecdote about one mother who “may” have insisted her daughter do X or Y, is reducing this to more he said/she said. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The frat is not a soul-less building. By naming the frat, she, by default, named all its members as potential attackers. </p>
<p>She also identified that one of the guys was a member of a small anthropology group she was in - again there, all the guys in that small section are marked as potential attackers. </p>
<p>Therefore, people are looking at all these guys and wondering if 9 of them actually attacked her., and which ones it might be. </p>
<p>Sounds coy, but by saying she did not name names is quibbling on the edges, as with the Internet all the guys she has fingered as potential attackers are known and there is nothing she can say or RS can say that would prove they did not know the names would not be found out. You know why - I bet you the RS reporter’s Internet search history have searches identifying all those guys before she wrote the story. Jackie’s internet search history may have that as well. If they can find the names based on the information she gave then they knew anyone could find it. </p>
<p>The one thing that will be illuminating is when we find out Jackie’s and the RS reporter’s Internet browser history as they were putting together the story. That will tell volumes. And Jackie’s search history around the time of the alleged attack will tell volumes too. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is another problem. I can’t tell you how many times my D has told me that her friends left her to her own devices at a party. They might find a guy and go off with him. Sometimes they simply get bored and leave and later say “we couldn’t find you. We knew you’d be ok”. Other times they get so drunk that they say they don’t remember leaving her behind and are sorry. </p>
<p>She ended up getting left the weekend before Hannah Graham was abducted and wandered around the exact same streets for an hour despite being only 3 blocks from home because she was drunk and there was a 3 hour wait for the campus escort service to come get her and keep her safe. She figured 3 blocks was short enough that she would be ok. Luckily she was, but I cringe at the thought of what could have happened. </p>
<p>These kids are horrible about looking out for each other. </p>
<p>Was discussing this with my husband and son and have to say I don’t understand why some here appear to indicate that if I am not sure I believe Jackie anymore, then it means I disbelieve all women who say they have been raped. </p>
<p>I am not sure what, if anything, happened to Jackie. Her story is all over the place and it is very hard to know anymore what is true or not. And I for one happen to believe the truth (fact) of an allegation or accusation is important. But being unsure about Jackie does not mean I wouldn’t believe someone else. Part of believing someone when he/she tells you ANYTHING is a level of trust. I am willing to offer pretty much everyone the benefit of the doubt at first, but the story has to hold up. I look at all of these incidents we’ve discussed on a case by case basis. Sometimes I end up leaning toward believing the accuser, sometimes the accused. The holes and mistakes in Jackie’s story make me trust her less. Whether these are the reporter’s fault, or Jackie has a fragmented memory, or she is just a liar, I can’t say. But the level of trust is low at this point (for me).</p>
<p>I would say I always start out believing the accuser, just because I do think these accusations are not made lightly. When I first read Jackie’s story, I believed her 100% because who would make that up? The details were horrific. But now? Those same details that made me believe her have been disputed by other accounts of that night. I honestly don’t know what to believe anymore. However, that doesn’t mean I am a “rape apologist” who thinks rape never happens. I take offense at that notion. I like to think of myself as thoughtful and fair-minded, looking at all sides of a story, and I do not take these issues lightly.</p>
<p>From the Daily Beast article I posted earlier:</p>
<p>"When journalists did scrutinize what they viewed as weak and one-sided reporting, they were met with accusations of victim-blaming. Some likened their skepticism of Erdely’s piece to police casting undeserved doubt on an alleged rape victim’s story…</p>
<p>We live in a culture that valorizes victims—where to question one woman’s claims of sexual abuse is to be a “rape apologist,” someone who effectively dismisses heinous crime under any and all circumstances…</p>
<p>The problem with valorizing the victim, as a “victim culture” does, is that anything that runs contrary to the victim’s narrative is cast as an attack on that person.</p>
<p>Question them, and you are colluding in exacerbating the awful effects of their trauma. Question their actions or motives and you are “victim shaming” and “victim blaming.” </p>
<p>Question those taking on the mantle of victimhood and you are immediately cast as some kind of aggressive, unfeeling oppressor. The sad consequence of a culture of victimhood is that it obscures real victims and obscures the genuinely felt experiences of those victims, whatever they have endured.</p>
<p>In the case of Jackie and the University of Virginia, while journalists and pundits take positions based on what best suits their cause, the rest of us might never know what—if anything—happened to her that night in 2012. We only know that the story she originally told Rolling Stone was not entirely true—and, as a result, the issue of sexual assault on campuses is now even more warped."</p>
<p>The above struck a chord with me because I feel like I’ve been seeing it here among some posters’ back-and-forth. Just because people want facts before they make a judgement does not make them victim-blamers or members of a rapist fan club.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, they are just drunk. They do what they can do. They have their own hormonal urges, too. They are not the Secret Service trained to protect the President. </p>
<p>People like to talk a lot about bystanders. Do they realize that the bystanders are often just as sloshed as the kids at risk AND looking to get laid? Anyone who thinks mutual chaperoning by kids and depending on the kindness of bystanders is a real viable solution is simply dreaming. </p>
<p>@TV4caster - OK, that is downright scary, as a parent to hear. But, I agree with SWDY that the kids are not out for groupthink and group hugs, but for their own pleasure, whether we like it or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Except for the fact that there were hundreds of anth discussion groups that term and nobody has a clue which group it was that she was referring to. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ok, how in the world could I find this information then, i.e., all the guys’ names? The information is out there because she gave enough identifying info that people pieced the info together and they wrote about it on the internet; it is not like she is unknown at UVA. I believe she gave out too much info from the start, just my view. </p>
<p>I really think we have a warped system whereby at 18 we categorize individuals as adults but we only treat them as partial adults. We can throw them to the wolves out of our homes with no financial responsibility, we can throw them in the middle of a war zone overseas, but we can’t allow them to learn to drink responsibly because they are too immature nor can they be classified as independent from their parents until the age of what 23 for college financial assistance. On the one hand we are telling them they are grown ups and on the other hand we are telling them they are children. Ever notice how the getting drunk behavior generally diminishes after the age of 21? </p>
<p>The real group of people that Jackie hurt are the rape survivors and their advocacy groups. I wonder how many politicians linked their names to the Jackie story to get quick brownie points and it will be fun to see how they backtrack now. Those leeches do nothing and just wait to attach their names to a cause. But because this topic will be radioactive for some time now rape victim advocacy will take a major step back. At the same time, the college tribunals are going to get a horrible black eye. </p>
<p>All because of one 20 year old who likely lied about getting raped to gain the attention of a fellow student, and then had to build a web of lies to cover up that just spiralled out of control, and something she probably also started to believe after a while. What a shame. As they say, when you have a cover story keep it as close to reality as possible as otherwise you will inevitably mess up. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly so. That was what I was trying to get at with the community norms. It’s not illegal to take advantage of someone’s drunken agreement, when you know that what you are persuading her to do is something she will bitterly regret tomorrow. It shouldn’t be something punishable by college discipline. But it’s slimy, and slimy behavior ought to be treated as creepy and undesirable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure what you are saying. Is the anth guy’s name out there? I can’t imagine how anyone could have tracked him down without accessing the school’s records. Are those available to someone outside of the admin? This of course all supposes that she even took anth, which I am beginning to doubt. </p>
<p>If one reviews some of the posts on this thread, the overall picture is exactly what transpires when a woman reports a rape. Despite being through a harrowing experience, If there are any inconsistencies in her account or if she cannot remember every single detail, the central issue of the rape becomes secondary. Adjectives such as “unstable”, “hoax”, “liar” and “attention seeker” are thrown around. And thrown around by people who have no more first hand knowledge of what actually transpired than the various people quoted in the press do. The circumstances surrounding most sexual assaults are not neat and tidy.</p>
<p>I do not claim to have the slightest idea of what it might be like to walk in the shoes of a young girl who, after just two weeks on a college campus, is the victim of a sexual assault or rape. But I can imagine the confusion, fear, isolation and humiliation that a young girl would feel after being subjected to such an experience. Add to that the stress of her envisioning the social backlash of going public with such allegations in an environment in which she has not yet assembled a cohesive friend group or support system.</p>
<p>So much has been made on this thread of the purported misidentification of the frat, which if true is problematic and unfortunate. But if one looks at the various pictures of the fraternity houses at the end of the Daily Mail article linked below, it is a wonder that anyone could tell them apart especially at night. Further, it appears they are all on the same road. I do not understand why a young girl would not be given the benefit of the doubt until all the facts are established. Would you not want that for your own daughter? </p>
<p>Once the investigation is complete and the facts established to the best of our systems ability, then let the chips fall where they may.</p>
<p><a href=“University of Virginia fraternities chief said 'Jackie' WAS raped | Daily Mail Online”>University of Virginia fraternities chief said 'Jackie' WAS raped | Daily Mail Online;
<p>
</p>
<p>Just for the record it happens both ways. Boys have not cornered this market. Girls seduce boys that they would like to sleep with just as much, especially when the boys are drunk. But boys don’t “deeply regret” and call it rape the next day. They just say ewww and run. That’s the main difference. Just look up the CDC study, it surveyed boys too.</p>
<p>If this is evidence of rape culture, what are parents teaching their girls? Is not seducing drunk boys that they have a crush on part of the education at home?</p>
<p>Bengal, this is’t about “allowing them” to learn to drink responsibly. It’s partly about the results of not drinking responsibly. You can regret all you want that we set some expectations and still hold a 21 drinking age, but to me, maturity is shown or not- not just a magic thing on their 18th bday.</p>
<p>Scary, TV4. But if one thinks, “No, they are just drunk. They do what they can do,” I’m astounded at the assumption that not-drunk friends don’t do this. </p>
<p>What is drunken agreement? Why not call it agreement or not? Are you saying drunk is still in control of her decisions- or not? Aren’t you walking a fine line? You said, "not illegal to take advantage of someone’s drunken agreement, when you know that what you are persuading her to do is something she will bitterly regret tomorrow.’ That’s ok? Separate it from what we may have done and not bitterly regretted the next am.</p>
<p>A woman sleeps with a man even though he’s going to regret it the next day, but then he doesn’t regret it? How does that even make sense? Are you saying that women think the guy is going to regret it, but then he doesn’t? </p>
<p>I’m not talking about misplaced beliefs that the other person is going to regret the sex. I’m talking about well-founded beliefs that the other person is going to regret the sex.</p>
<p>What is this even supposed to have to do with rape culture? </p>
<p>To put it another way, if I have a personal rule that I don’t persuade my friends to do things that I think they’ll later regret, and I’m thinking of having sex with this drunk guy who in my judgment won’t regret it the next day, then the rule doesn’t apply. </p>
<p>HarvestMoon, PKP is in a unique location. It may look like others, more or less, but sits by itself at one end of Madison Bowl, a large dell. I’m not saying that lends any veracity, but it’s not one of the many houses that line Rugby Rd.</p>
<p>I really don’t even think Jackie named the frat. I think the reporter was planning to write about that particular frat for real reasons of her own whatever Jackie did or didn’t say and the frat is mentioned in the opening scene which is not a quote…it’s an opening scene. There’s a difference. </p>
<p>Right @lookinforward but the Jeffersonian facade on all of them is strikingly similar. For a student on the campus for 2 weeks I don’t think confusing those houses is all that hard to fathom. </p>