<p>"The problem with comparing robbery and rape is that robbery is often clear-cut, and rape is not.</p>
<p>Too many cases are initially called rape by the accuser when legally they are not. That is just a fact."</p>
<p>So women lie in rape cases more than people falsely claim robbery? Can you please support that with more evidence than “That is just a fact.” I know how big you are on having evidence before anyone asserts something, I am sure you would not pull this out of your ***. </p>
<p>TatinG, your breitbart link has only one side of the story as usual. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not at all. (Sorry about your MIL though)</p>
<p>Please realize you are living in the world of non-sequitors. </p>
<p>I put it this way; just because your MIL was robbed and knows who did it, does not mean every female who alleges rape was actually raped. These things have nothing to do with each other. Anyway, because it has been shown time and time again that sex has been called rape after the fact when in fact it cannot be legally deemed rape. Stopping again because we discussed this is other threads and should stick to this UVA story. </p>
<p>TatinG, your breitbart link has only one side of the story as usual.</p>
<p>Hey, that’s the problem with the RS story. Except even the one side isn’t factually sound.</p>
<p>TatinG, your breitbart link has only one side of the story as usual. </p>
<p>The jury spoke. There was no denying what was said. It was on tape. It was the damages that got my attention. If a jury could award that kind of money to Jesse Ventura, FTLOG, for one statement, against a widow (!), what would a jury do with these horrendous allegations printed on the internet and in a magazine.</p>
<p>If we don’t call it rape, then rape doesn’t exist.<br>
Yeah - I know that world.
This generation of women isn’t going to live there. You won’t be able to make them. My sons won’t live there either.</p>
<p>No… This is part of the UVA story, awcntdb. </p>
<p>Who said every women who claims rape was raped? Where do you come up with every? Every person who claims robbery wasn’t robbed either.</p>
<p>The RS story doesn’t have to be factually sound for Jackie or other women to have been raped. Right? </p>
<p>There are other women mentioned in the RS story? Are they lying too?</p>
<p>There is an assumption that Jackie wasn’t raped because the RS story has sections that are false in it. We don’t know if Jackie was raped or not. </p>
<p>TatinG, it is the breitbart Lena rape story that is one sided.</p>
<p>Oops that was awcntdb’s link. I am watching you TatinG. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Amazing - this actually goes to court and gets flushed out. BOTH sides present their arguments. The defendant loses on the grounds that the evidence of defamation is clear, and the response on this thread is that is only one side of the story. Yet posters act like they know BOTH sides better than the jury. Talk about opinion masquerading as fact and knowledge. </p>
<p>Awcntdb, did you read the Rolling Stones story? </p>
<p>What did you think about the other women mentioned in the story?</p>
<p>Did you read the breitbart link? </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your statement lacks a reality basis - the reality is not simply everything is rape if just called it. Women do not get to define whatever they want as rape, just like men do not get to define whatever they want as consensual sex. </p>
<p>People do not get to make up their own definitions and think those definitions are supposed to be accepted in a court or even by the public. </p>
<p>My point is just saying it does not make it so, and that goes for many things. It is not about denying anything. it is about applying understood standards to serious charges. </p>
<p>What exactly do you think definitions are? Someone, sometime made them up. That is why the definition of rape today isn’t the same as in the 1980s, or 1970s, or earlier in history. The acts of violence against women we call rapes exist whatever we call them, or how we define them.</p>
<p>“You are on the outside looking in.”</p>
<p>I’ve been on the inside many times before (screening resumes for federal judicial clerkships in two different judges’ chambers, as well as in a law firm and a university). The limitation of being on the “inside,” of course, is that it’s easy to make the mistake of assuming that your own procedures are common to all employers/schools. Over the course of hundreds of clients with varying ambitions, on the other hand, you get to see what works and what doesn’t work. People who get into Yale Law School or hired at Goldman Sachs or McKinsey did everything right.</p>
<p>You are confusing leaving something off of a resume and “hiding” bad information. Fraternity membership is not bad information, and it does not need to be hidden. I never claimed that leaving it off the resume makes it impossible to discover. That said, employers and graduate schools pay attention when you tell them that information is important by highlighting it. If you keep fraternity membership out of your social media and off your resume, graduate schools and the vast majority of employers generally will not go to the trouble of digging it up, because whether you were in a fraternity or not is not germane to their decision.</p>
<p>Not many recent UVA grads will be seeking the kind of jobs that require intensive background searches. Nor are the kind of sophisticated employers seeking a CEO, FBI officer, etc., likely to act on the kind of irrational prejudice that would keep them from hiring a UVA Phi Psi who was the best qualified candidate.</p>
<p>There really is a definition problem going on here with sexual assault and rape being used interchangeably and it effects these numbers, too. </p>
<p>never mind. not worth it.</p>
<p>delete, too.</p>
<p>In some jurisdictions (like for example Canada) there is no crime named rape. The crime formerly called rape is now called sexual assault.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who in his right mind would be so dumb, as to believe people who cannot be factually sound? Cannot wrap my head around that thought. </p>
<p>You might suggest the females write their own story because right now the RS story is what people know and they do not believe it. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have not a clue about the other women and their allegations. But given Jackie, I am not dumb enough to stake my credibility on them either given the current story.</p>
<p>It is kind of a walking up the hill backwards approach to convince people of something serious by intertwining inconsistent stories with supposed truthful stories and to not think credibility overall wouldn’t suffer. </p>
<p>Suggestion - have these women file real reports, write real, factual stories, get the actual facts out on the table not in a gossip column sort of way, and let people see what is up. This gossip column approach is for the birds. No one is going to believe half of this stuff since no one’s story is really being corroborated and the people vested in this stuff is doing all on faith of obviously tainted subjects. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks, you prove my point. </p>
<p>Your projected horizon for the applicants is way too limited as this stuff can affect decades later in the weirdest, most unexpected ways. You have no idea know how much stuff we find from people’s colleges and grad school they think they hid from us. And yes, it does affect how we view them vis a vis another applicant.</p>
<p>It is one thing to have those things come up, but to have them come up and they are based on a lie is just not kosher in my book and should not be just dismissed, as no big deal. Because that one thing could be the deal breaker even if it seems innocuous to you and you thought it was hidden… but 25 years later… oops there it is. Happens all the time. </p>
<p>Women are writing their own stories. They will continue to do so. You will not be able to wrap your head around it. And that will not matter in the least. The world is changing. </p>
<p>Look, this was an epic fail of sloppy impact journalism and everyone knows it will hurt the cause a whole lot, whatever the cause is exactly. But, it’s definitely not Jackie or even other rape victims because they were ready to throw her under the bus and drive right over her yesterday. Until, they realized that was bad PR.</p>