<p>If it turns out that no sexual assault occurred in the Phi Psi House, then I wish the fraternity does sue. They clearly were harmed. In fact, the fraternity’s name is still plastered on the image on the Rolling Stone website right next to the pseudo-disclaimer. The full article describing a gang rape by 7 Phi Psi members and two Phi Psi ringleaders inside the Phi Psi House is STILL posted on the RS website. RS should have already deleted the parts they could not verify. </p>
<p>I would be very very very surprised if UVa would sue, but Dean Eramo could have a strong case as an individual, depending upon the facts. Those facts will come out. </p>
[quote]
The whatever it still happens sometimes attitude is the one I just can’t quite wrap my head around yet.[/ quote]</p>
<p>Marie1234, I don’t know where you are going with this.</p>
<p>Some of us see campus rape as a big issue. We see the way women are treated is a big issue after being raped is a big issue. </p>
<p>I think you do too…</p>
<p>I see The RS article as just a microcosm of this</p>
<p>My feelings on rape are not dependent on this article. If this article causes constructive changes, than I am going to be happy about this aspect of the article. </p>
<p>I think false accusations are TERRIBLE. They can be life changing. I get that. Maybe the frat can sue. I am not sure about that. Drew is not suing. ;)</p>
<p>Who here has been been falsely accused of something in a court of law?</p>
<p>@awcntdb wrote: “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>Did you even read the story? You aren’t going to necessarily believe the other stories in RS despite the fact that both women were raped and either got convictions or admissions before the SMB? I have rarely seen so many comments by one person that are so lacking in <fill in="" the="" blank="">. I’m beginning to wonder if you don’t have some ulterior motive or bias. </fill></p>
<p>That is public relations argument, not a legal one. I was talking legal. </p>
<p>And frankly if the value of the house, the land etc. had been damaged by this, if I were the frat I would want my money back. I bet you the school would settle if the suspension really was not voluntary and based on a lie. They would buy the frat and land for multiples just to end it. </p>
<p>The problem with the Internet though is things really no longer just go away. Die down yeah, but go away, never.</p>
<p>@Mamalumper wrote: “My thoughts are that no matter how committed colleges and police forces are to “change” etc I am not sure how you fix a he said she said situation without just believing women.”</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I agree. With the premise of our judicial system being “innocent until proven guilty” I would guess that a VERY SMALL percentage of rapists are convicted where the victim knew their attacker.</p>
<p>I put more weight on the women’s evidence if there are three separate accusers. For me, that’s probably going to be preponderance of the evidence right there, depending on the situation with the accusers and the accused, and out goes the accused attacker.</p>
<p>@awcntdb quoted from a friend that they apparently agree with: " That’s why there are so few rape convictions compared to the accusations."</p>
<p>Since FBI statistics alone say that there are very few false accusations then simple math says that if more than a small amount of accused rapists are found not guilty then there are rapists that are “getting away with it”. The term “so few” therefore implies that most rapists are getting away with it. Obviously you are ok with that. Again, this is another example of why I question your agenda or bias.</p>
<p>SWDYD: It starts at home.
I imagine some parents worry quite a bit about false accusations. Hope that;s not all they discuss with their kids, male or female.</p>
<p>I wonder. How can the FBI or anyone know for sure that there are very few false accusations? What is that based on if so few cases are prosecuted? Truly a question here not an agenda.</p>
<p>If this turns out to be a completely false story, and the reporter did no fact checking, the fraternity absolutely should sue. Fraternities are businesses, and the goal is to make money. The national chapters in particular have an interest in no negative publicity. If they have lost dues money from people now unwilling to pledge, people quitting the fraternity, other chapters having issues keeping people—they have been financially harmed by lies and irresponsible reporting, potentially for years to come.</p>
<p>@marie1234 wrote: “Well, the thread is about UVA frats being on suspension which happened because of a phony article.”</p>
<p>I would even characterize the statement that UVA frats are suspended as false. Maybe it is me just being picky about semantics, but the frats are not suspended. Nobody is being kicked out, for example. The only thing that happened is that they were not allowed to have social functions during that time. Even then, I know of many that continue unabated to have identical parties, just at houses where other members live who don’t live in the frat house. </p>
<p>To clarify I meant what can “we” as in colleges, students, cops, judges, citizens, politicians do? Why is college rape incidence going up when overall rape incidence is sharply going down?</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>Once again misrepresenting the truth. </p>
<p>First, why do you think that you get to singularly define what the thread is about?</p>
<p>Second, you continue to try to attack a straw man opponent who has an “ideology that “truth is incidental”.” Who in this thread has stated this is their ideology?</p>
<p>Third, you not only reframe the thread as about the truth, but then you try to define it more narrowly as about telling the truth by only women in order to avoid the larger issue of lying by men which seems to not trouble you at all.</p>
<p>The only reason that I can think of to do this is to protect men who rape and lie about it by consistently redirecting the conversation into an argument opposing a straw man view which no actual person holds. </p>
<p>“Second, you continue to try to attack a straw man opponent who has an “ideology that “truth is incidental”.” Who in this thread has stated this is their ideology?”</p>
<p>I think this may have come from something I said which the advocacy people have said in defense of the fake story. Personally, I find calling this kind of article journalism disgraceful. and basically the point is bigger than the details is the point the writer was pushing until she gave up in well disgrace. Sorry. It stinks, and I’m glad to see it finally fail. That has nothing to do with campus rape but I don’t even know why we have this category wherever rape happens. Call the cops.</p>
<p>Assuming 2012 population was around the same as today, and rape and sexual assault incidence was about the same in 2010 and 2012, 340 thousand women in total were raped in 2012 in the USA. (160.5 million times 2.1 divided by 1000)</p>
<p>Therefore 8.5 million college women were raped or sexually assaulted in 2012. (44.5 million times 19 percent).</p>
<p>What I am not understanding is how can 8.5 million college women be raped or sexually assaulted in the USA in 2012 when in total 0.3 million women were raped or sexually assaulted in the USA in 2012?</p>
<p>I am only using Govt numbers here. Did I get my math wrong?</p>
