<p>"…there is entire chorus denying the fact that females who seemingly lie or embellish about rape is not a problem and that we should sympathize with them because other rape happens."</p>
<p>You continue to attempt to mischaracterize what has been said.</p>
<p>I have not heard anyone say that alleged victims lying or embellishing about rape is not a problem. Everyone agrees that telling the truth is what they should do, and it is a problem when that does not happen.</p>
<p>What people are not willing to do is to let rape defenders redirect the entire discussion away from the more important discussion of how to deal with the large number of rapes that are happening on college campuses.</p>
<p>It is true that some percentage of rape victims lie, just as it is true that some percentage of victims of other crimes lie. While this seems to be news to you, most of us have been aware of it for a long time. If that were not the case, we would not need a judicial system. Furthermore, as far as I know, there is no evidence, that women lie about rape more often than alleged victims lie about any other type of crime.</p>
<p>What people do not understand is why you are not concerned about rapists who are guilty being allowed to stay on campus, and rapists who lie and say that they did not commit a crime when they actually did. Instead there is a concerted effort to redirect the conversation away from the primary issues onto a discussion of what to do about women who lie. Additionally, there seems to be no concern about victims how lie about any other crime, but only women who lie about rape.</p>
<p>For someone who purports to be so concerned about the importance of victims being accurate in their statements, you do not seem to be very accurate in your own statements.</p>
<p>Bay, focusing on lying and the hypothetical damage to the boys- and blowing it up to resumes being canned and security clearances denied- and did someone say, the frat being closed- is projecting, to the nth degree. And it’s obviously focused on the guys, leaping to their defense. Not on both sides. </p>
<p>It seems to give some people a bye, when inaccuracies are found. They go from zero to sixty mighty fast. A lot of this talk has been focused on lying. </p>
<p>It really stands out on this thread. And sure, that starts with RS’s choices, in this case. But we can react differently. And of course, I get that threads are often about “us” and our jockeying to be right, not the real discussions that can and should take place.</p>
<p>Look back over the thread and you’ll see it.</p>
<p>Well, the thread is about UVA frats being on suspension which happened because of a phony article. So, of course the lies in the article are going to be discussed. And, rape happens but apparently this one didn’t for sure anyway or at least not the dramatically enhanced version discussed for 2 weeks and then retracted. The whatever it still happens sometimes attitude is the one I just can’t quite wrap my head around yet.</p>
<p>dstark how did her parents know the boy was lying? What did he lie about that is corroborated? The link is a letter from parents to the college, not investigative results and probably parents that are without a doubt upset that their daughter didn’t get what she wanted from the uni. It sounds like the case got to the DAs office and then she backed out. Why? She is certainly strong enough to be another media darling and drag her mattresses…why did she drop the case when it got to the DA? </p>
During the hearing, Nungesser, advised by his outside attorney, lied in order to cast doubt upon Emma’s character and present an alternative and perverse motivation for her complaint. Our daughter was instructed by Ms. Siler not to answer these allegations in any way, and not even to inform the panel that he was lying. He repeatedly stated that there was an online video that he was not allowed to show the panelists, but wished he could, because it “proved that she had an irrational fear of immobilization,” which would lead her to imagine or lie about being raped even if the experience was actually consensual. Emma begged Ms. Siler to allow her to expose the lie by explaining the video’s content to the panelists, but was refused. In the video, which was an interview posted as part of a women’s issues project, Emma, then 18 and a fencer on Columbia’s varsity team, talked only about a fencing injury and her drive to do extra strength training after her recovery because of her fear of being weak. The “immobilization” was a walking cast she’d had to wear on her foot. The online project is still readily viewable, and the boldness of the lie can be easily verified.[\quote]</p>
<p>So? Now its back. Why is that such an issue for you? Don’t tell me, you have a singular agenda, and it doesn’t involve consequences to men.</p>
<p>On another note, I believe that Drew was not a Phi Psi, but that doesn’t fully exonerate the Phi Psi house. As we have seen from other examples of incidents taking place in fraternity houses, they often involve out-siders; non-fraternity members who happen to be in the house that evening.</p>
<p>What’s with the mocking suggestion I have an agenda? Who’s talking about the frat suspensions now? Again, the comment about “consequences to men.” Men,men,men. You wanna talk about both sides? Or just women who lie and wreck men’s lives??? That’s just one leaf under the autumn tree.</p>
<p>Actually, people are saying the frats can probably sue. Their house was damaged, their reputation was called into question. I presume the lawyers have advised them to wait until all the facts are out but on surface, yeah, the frat could sue either RS or UVa or Jackie if they choose to. The point is this is about both men AND women, not just women. It’s never, ever been about just women. Unfortunately right now it’s the women and universities that are getting negative press from mainstream media. And the balance of mainstream media that are cautiously writing are talking about due process by universities and lack of criminal prosecution because of a number of issues and whether universities should even be sitting in judgement on matters that are criminal. </p>
<p>I don’t see how Phi Psi would have grounds to sue UVA. And, what for? IIRC, Phi Psi voluntarily suspended themselves shortly thereafter the publication of the article. Sometime after that, the University put a temporary ban on all greek life (not singling out any particular house). And as may have been pointed out earlier, that ban didn’t materially affect students as the Houses were not on university grounds (so the members didn’t have to scramble to find new housing) and the timeframe covered by the ban was made up mostly of breaks from school and the final exam period. They may have missed a party or two, but is that grounds for a lawsuit. What am I missing? </p>
<p>As far as the rest, I suppose they could, however I can’t see it coming to that. But, I don’t think anyone knows all the facts at this point, so I really can’t say. I think this piece on Libel law has been linked before, but it may help to post it again here too:</p>
<p>I don’t think they will sue, but that’s just my opinion. The kid in the mattress dragging precursor has a much stronger civil case than the UVa frat since he’s been outted and never convicted of anything. I’m not a sue happy person but this “trial in the media” BS has just got to stop.</p>
<p>It was just a matter of time that the negative press would show up re women and universities. </p>
<p>It is one thing to accuse someone of a crime and seek prosecution and justice. It is another thing altogether to accuse and expect that you do not have to accurately and truthfully defend the accusation. To expect that is just beyond weird because if everything is true, why the need to shut down the other side’s take on events? Any logical person knows that is a sinister move by any standard.</p>
<p>As my Dad told me decades ago, “Pick your fights. But, when you pick your fight, be ready to put up or shut up.” Women who allege rape should pick one hell of a fight with the accused and go after the guy, but just because one accuses of rape does not mean you get a free “I do not have to tell the whole truth” or a free “I get to hide and tell me story without cross examination of my statement” card. </p>
<p>For those missing the point, this thread is not about men, it is about truth. Advocates should think long and hard about their ideology that “truth is incidental.” Once you lose people on truth, I guarantee you you will lose the entire argument and not be trusted on other issues too.</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>That is partially because they are used interchangeably in some states. Some states have completely taken rape out of their laws and substituted sexual assault. </p>
<p>I have been involved in businesses cases where the big claim was things were done voluntarily and lo and behold we find an email or letter from someone threathening action if they do not take any. Hum… That is not voluntary anymore, is it? I would wait until discovery to make sure there were no threatening correspondences from the university to frat first. I have seen this claim too much, and they have never panned out to be just voluntary. </p>