<p><a href=“What Rolling Stone Did to “Cindy” | The New Yorker”>What Rolling Stone Did to “Cindy” | The New Yorker;
<p>An interesting point of view. Jackie was willing to defame ‘Cindy’ by calling her a ‘self-proclaimed hook up queen’. </p>
<p>Maybe accusing another woman of promiscuity these days is no longer defamation. I’m so old school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hum…maybe because strong social conservative people drink, get drunk, and have sex too. Just throwing that thought out there. </p>
<p>It will come as news to you then that being social conservative does not mean the same as being celibate; does not mean not loving to party with women; does not mean never using foul language; and surely does not mean not partaking voluntarily in adult beverages with a female who is voluntarily partaking in the adult beverages as well. </p>
<p>The simple way to say it is strong social conservatives like to have fun too. Well, I’ll be damned.</p>
<p>"Some alumni and parents of students who belong to fraternities say U-Va. should be more sensitive to what members have gone through in recent weeks.</p>
<p>A woman who said her son is a current member of the Phi Kappa Psi chapter at U-Va., who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect her son, said professors “shamed the fraternity members in class” after the Rolling Stone article appeared.</p>
<p>The U-Va. student who says she was attacked told Rolling Stone and The Post that it occurred during a party at that fraternity Sept. 28, 2012. The fraternity has said it did not host any parties that weekend, and the student’s friends have said they now have serious doubts about the allegations.</p>
<p>The mother of the Phi Psi member said she thinks university leadership did not act to protect fraternity members from harassment, even after cinder blocks were thrown through the chapter house’s windows late at night as students slept upstairs.</p>
<p>“To date, no one has issued any sort of public apology directly to the fraternity or its members,” the mother said. “The men in this fraternity have been through hell, and they have handled it with dignity and respect."</p>
<p>From today’s Washington Post article. <a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/uproar-at-u-va-about-rolling-stone-story-spawns-debate-over-fraternity-treatment/2014/12/11/d94686a4-8170-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/uproar-at-u-va-about-rolling-stone-story-spawns-debate-over-fraternity-treatment/2014/12/11/d94686a4-8170-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html</a></p>
<p>I cannot believe that the University professors and administration were sucked in and so quick to judge. It is shameful that the university has yet to apologize to the fraternity.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m with you. It’s been a long time, but back in my day, law texts taught us that calling women promiscuous and men rapists was defamation per se. Now calling women sluts is some sort of badge of honor, and calling fraternity men rapey is nbd. I should get with the times I guess, but I won’t. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They get raped too. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It may not appeal to you, and you don’t have to engage in it. But you should be open-minded to accept that many, many people are just fine with hookups. Can you do that or do you HAVE to force your morality on others? I guess that’s OK as long as you understand that you will be ignored. </p>
<p>PS: I am interpreting interested as in interested in a relationship or even friendship. If of course the person is not interested in having sex and you do force him/her, that’s a clear case of rape.</p>
<p>“Since the photo of Drew that was transmitted turned out to be a high school classmate of Jackie’s that barely knew her, perhaps the sender was a high school friend of Jackie’s who was in on Jackie’s ruse to attract Randall.”</p>
<p>Or perhaps she sent it and some fake texts to herself to show to her new friends which sounds at least as plausible and maybe more so than anything else I’m reading on here. It sounds like Jackie had a crush on Randy. Before they met up that night she called him and that he has confirmed so perhaps she wanted to make him jealous with the story about the fancy date and brought along proof of the imaginary third year in her chemistry class and the added drama of the oral sex gang rape (if there is such a thing I’m not really sure) provided a need for comforting which caused him to spend the night. Then not so luckily she found her way into the rape advocate friends group and ultimately onto the pages of Rolling Stone magazine. </p>
<p>Women use “slut” to reduce the sting and social control of women’s actions, in ways similar to the way gays took on queer, and blacks took on N* (which I can’t even write as it may result in post-deletion). I see the embrace of slut as a positive political act, not a move I would make, but one I can understand. On the other hand, the neologism rapey is more problematic. It normalizes rape, by extending its cultural usage, (1) making rape nbd and (2) emphasizing the grey area of rape by making it an adjective rather than a verb.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is easy to answer why humans do - it feels good and has positive physical effects by releasing certain hormones and raising the concentration of particular ions, which stimulate the muscle growth and heightens the immune system and a whole host of other things. </p>
<p>Medically, this pleasure and the physical effects are part of the autonomic nervous system (ANS), i.e., it is beyond our conscious control, and our bodies crave it and seeks it out, regardless of what we do to naturally suppress it. The only things, which can suppress it really are drugs (which are unnatural), which reduces sex hormone production in adults or reduces the development of secondary sex characteristics in adolescents. </p>
<p>The part which you allude to, the conscious appeal of having sex with a particular person, has nothing to do with the ANS and the really is irrelevant to what the body is doing and wants to do. And frankly, shutting down the drive is one of the hardest things for humans to do. </p>
<p>The most basic way to envision it is mentally-challenged people and super geniuses have the EXACT same level of sex drive (assuming each have normal hormone levels) and the mentally-challenged person’s body wants to have sex just as much and appeal for the person, in most cases, has nothing to do with it. </p>
<p>And of course the other part of the answer, some people just like to have sex because they like to have sex; partner being irrelevant. Not all people have sex that includes or requires like / appeal of the other person. It may include just having companionship, i.e., fwb.</p>
<p>CF, Respectfully, you tell us that we shouldn’t listen to interpretations of Yes means Yes, and then expect us to belive your interpretation of it. That’s not going to fly. Yes means Yes is a new law. There is little case law to know how it will be interpreted by the people who interpretation is what matters and that’s not you, it is the college tribunals. Till we get some case law, people are going to read the law and make their own interpretations, and since the consequences of breaking it is huge, be on the farthest side of safe, and then some. That side is exactly how all those that say Yes means Yes is braindead interpret it - just say no to ALL drunken/high sex, and most sex outside of the case where you have complete and utter trust in the girl.</p>
<p>Since I have complete and utter trust in no one, not even Astrea and Iustitia, that means say no to all sex to me. Trusting a college girl to be fair and consistent is like trusting a pot of raging hormones to have the same effect as valium. I am not very smart, but still I am smarter than that. So this Yes means Yes is basically Sharia law. Perhaps instead of trusting your own judgment, you should read up on what others are saying about it. In fact, even those that champion Yes means Yes are agreeing that it will have a chilling effect on campus sexuality and behavior, and that’s why they champion it. They are not interpreting it as to be as benign as you want to spin it to be.</p>
<p>Liking or disliking Yes means Yes, then comes to whether you like Sharia Law or not. Yes, Sharia Law definitely reduces incidence of rape, but it also deeply suppresses human sexuality and other normal behavior as drug and alcohol intake. It’s a choice where you want society to be. As a far left Libertarian I can’t agree to Sharia Law.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed, social conservatives get raped too. So do communists, so do hookers, and so do people who like group sex.</p>
<p>However, this does not mean any of these cohorts use your definition of rape. Definitions that you use in your life is not the arbiter of how other’s should interpret their lives, actions, and what happens to them. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this is a very nice overview that I agree with, except that I think taking back “slut” does more that reduce the sting. Like “rapey” does to rape, I think “slut” might normalize the idea that most women like to have sex with a lot of guys they don’t know well, I am not convinced this is true at all. And if there is a “rape culture,” then the idea that women are sluts and proud of it, may contribute to that, imo.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In one of the articles I read about the interview with Cindy, Andy and Randall, it was reported that Jackie contacted one (or both, I can’t remember) of the men to come to her aid after the rape, but told them not to bring Cindy. Cindy came anyway.</p>
<p>Yes, that right. I think it was the ABC article.</p>
<p>This has nothing to do with me or my definitions. ;)</p>
<p>Conservative women get raped too. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This!</p>
<p>This is why we have laws. Law is the only standard that applies to everyone. Morality is individual. I don’t want someone else’s morality influencing me. As a Libertarian, I say - shove it. Live your life as you want to, let me live mine as I want to as long as neither one of us are breaking any laws. </p>
<p>So, for those that like Yes means Yes, would you like that to be the criminal law for all adults including yourself? Several people have mocked it. Only CF is in favor. How do you think it will do in a vote?</p>
<p>And if you won’t subject yourself to it (as society), why would you subject college kids to it? When will helicoptering stop?</p>
<p>If we look at the [Dubowski</a> chart](<a href=“http://www.drugdetection.net/PDF%20documents/Dubowski%20-%20stages%20of%20alcohol%20effects.pdf]Dubowski”>http://www.drugdetection.net/PDF%20documents/Dubowski%20-%20stages%20of%20alcohol%20effects.pdf) we can get a rough idea of the characteristics of someone who can’t consent.</p>
<p>A person in the Euphoric stage has decreased inhibitions and diminished judgement. They’re euphoric, sociable and talkative. I think we’d all agree that person has been drinking, but is not too drunk to consent.</p>
<p>At the other end, the person in the Stupor stage clearly can’t consent. They’re minimally conscious. They’re throwing up and peeing on themselves, and they’re about to fall unconscious. Those people are not making any decisions. They need to be watched to make sure they don’t fall unconscious and choke on their own vomit; they should not be someone’s sex toy.</p>
<p>I’d say the dividing line is the Confusion stage: disorientation, mental confusion, apathy, lethargy. If a person is there, they’re too far gone to make any choices about having sex.</p>
<p>The chart gives a blood alcohol level, but that’s only a rough guide-- it turns out not to be too accurate. Anyway, we don’t have breathalyzer data on the person, and we don’t care about BAC, but about the person’s behavior.</p>
<p>The question to consider is, in practice, how drunk are women who say they were too drunk to consent? I’ve heard of cases where the guy acknowledged that the woman was lying there vomiting, but he still maintained she was consenting. Oh come now.</p>
<p>I’d say the woman in this [New</a> Zealand rape education video](<a href=“www.whoareyou.co.nz - YouTube”>www.whoareyou.co.nz - YouTube) is too drunk to consent. What do you think?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hold on. The person has diminished judgment and they can still consent? How do you think college tribunals will react to that? How do you think someone who thought she was getting The One but just got sex instead is going to say about her state of judgment and ability to consent?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And now high school teens in addition to AP English Lit also have to learn the Dubowski chart? They have to become experts in diagnosing the following?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Can you make it any more Kafkaesque? By the way, the professors who would adjudicate these tribunals, have they even heard of the Dubowski chart? Are they experts in diagnosing based on the chart? Since they were not there, where will they find the data from to use in the diagnosis?</p>
<p>Or are they simply going to say, if she had even a sip of root beer, she was likely impaired? After all, the colleges will run afoul of the Feds if they don’t serve up enough red meat in the form of expelled boys for the public that has been brainwashed into believing the 1-in-5 BS number.</p>
<p>Parents, if you have boys, write to your representatives both state and Federal and ask them to change this stupid law and this stupid system.</p>
<p>As a parent, it didn’t seem complicated to me to advise my S not to have sex with any woman who appeared drunk since under the law, drunk women can’t consent to sex. (His answer, “I know, Mom!” lol) My advice was a little overbroad, but was pretty simple.</p>
<p>What’s your standard for when it is rape and when it isn’t, if two people are drunk, SoWhat? </p>