<p>Firstly, as a dyed-in-the-wool feminist, I do not use demeaning words for female body parts. I call them breasts. :)</p>
<p>Sure, I think a serial breast-grabber should be subject to college discipline, which would probably consist of having to attend a sexuality education class that emphasizes the importance of mutual respect and affection in human relationships. I don’t think the grabber should be expelled: perhaps suspended if there are any further complaints after taking the class, and expelled if there are more after that.</p>
<p>I think the same should be the fate of the ass-grabber. :)</p>
<p>I, too, have wondered why there hasn’t been investigation into which fraternities DID have members who worked as lifeguards with Jackie, and whether THEY had parties, back staircases, and so forth, since her identification of the house was obviously shaky. </p>
<p>My answer is, what change in the situation would have had to occur? The situation started out as the accuser not consenting to sex, because that is the default. Nothing you have mentioned constitutes consent to sex. On seeing the people together at the party, we might guess that the accuser was going to consent to sex, but our guesses, and the accused person’s guesses, do not constitute consent. Only consent is consent.</p>
<p>Mamalumper, it seems like you are switching between what we need to prove rape, and what constitutes rape. If she does not consent, that is rape. If a woman is raped, in some cases it will be difficult or impossible to prove that she was raped. That doesn’t mean she wasn’t raped, and it doesn’t absolve her rapist.</p>
<p>I don’t know the answer to your questions Cardinal, I only know the outcome which I posted so I have to assume that there were no details to bolster the boys story. But, that doesn’t change the fact that you didn’t ask any questions. Due process is very important. However, tricking you was not the reason I posted it, I posted it to show two things, </p>
<p>1, Since it is a true story it shows that it is a tough arena of judgement, either can be lying, only the SMB has all the facts.
2, It was reported timely, judged and the girl was successful, by the SMB.</p>
<p>Well, there are actually not that many cases of acquaintance rape that make it to court at all, even with all kinds of compelling evidence. The problem is that women in college who allege rape often do have other compelling evidence, but it is waived off for the reasons I gave. My point is that for a few posters on this thread and the other ones like it, there is NO SUCH THING as corroboration, because every time details which are used as such, they are trivialized or explained away in the manner I have already noted. Really, from what I can see, without explicit video evidence, it would be impossible to corroborate a rape, and even then, there are a couple who could probably take a video and explain it away with, as PG aptly put it, looking for the zebra rather than a horse when they see the hoof prints.</p>
<p>Krlillies: I wish you wouldn’t keep leaping to the defense of what you call the “seven deadly pigs.” The article described seven boys having sex with Jackie against her will. If anything like that happened, the seven boys deserve skewering. If Jackie made it up, there are no seven boys to defend. None of the boys has been named so far, so no one specific (other than “Drew”) has been accused of anything. About the only thing we know about them at this point is that it’s unlikely, but not impossible, that they were members or pledges of Phi Psi.</p>
<p>When someone specific is accused, I will pay attention to whether he gets treated fairly. Maybe he didn’t do it, or maybe it didn’t happen like she said. But I don’t need to follow due process to condemn the conduct attributed to the unnamed boys in the article.</p>
<p>(One of the things that would be amusing about this controversy if it weren’t so awfully sad, is the apparent belief by lots of the fraternity crowd that everyone in the world pays attention to which fraternity is which, and that being mistaken about the fraternity to which the boys who raped you belonged means that nothing you say can be trusted. Whereas for most of the world that detain would be as irrelevant as whether their shoes were Topsiders or Docksiders.)</p>
<p>mom2and: I would really like to discuss some of the questions you raise but don’t see how it’s possible on these threads. I think probably there has to be some consensus on black and white before you investigate grays. Maybe in a few more months? It seems to me the conversations here have already changed pretty dramatically. </p>
<p>Mamalumper, you give us an example of a woman accusing a man of rape, and a man offering several “defenses” that are no defenses at all: she was dancing in a suggestive manner, she went into a room with him, he didn’t hear her say No. </p>
<p>Now you say, Maybe he had an actual defense against rape. Maybe he did, but I can’t understand why you are supplying an anecdote where an accused person offers non-defenses, and you don’t tell us about any actual defenses. </p>
<p>On the basis of the information you have provided us, the man raped the woman. If you can tell us about any claims he has that are actual defenses, then we can re-evaluate the situation. As of now, in a court of law, with what you have given me, and believing that both the man and the woman are telling the truth, I’d convict the guy. He’s entitled to a presumption of innocence if he can give a plausible claim that she consented, but he hasn’t done that. He convicts himself out of his own mouth, if this is all he can give us.</p>
<p>If a group is small enough, like the members of a fraternity, then that is specific enough for libel. Imagine if a national magazine wrote that seven members of the JHS family are rapists or seven people who live at the JHS address committed rape. If it were a complete lie, you’d be wanting a pound of flesh. I’ve read that the fraternity and individual members of the fraternity have hired lawyers. More to come.</p>
<p>@JHS, what exactly is my defense for the pigs, w/c btw is the term first used in this thread and the other thread by other posters so I am just repeating their label? </p>
<p>“Where did you meet him?”
“At the pool. I was working as a lifeguard. I’d talk to him during my shifts.”
“Was he working there too?”
“Yes, he was.”</p>
<p>Reporter writes that they were working lifeguard shifts together. Or writer writes something else and it is edited to read that way because it is tighter prose and the editor is making the assumption. </p>
<p>Lots of people would make this kind of error, especially those who are neither lawyers nor technical writers nor logicians. :)</p>
<p>In the "stranger has your watch’ scenario, the person might not be charged with theft if that cannot be proven. Instead, they might be charged with being in possession of stolen goods. Similarly, an accused rapist might not be charged with rape. Instead they might be charged with some lesser crime.</p>
<p>Without serious injuries, witnesses or an admission, I agree that this is true under our present judicial system. Which is why we go back to warning women to protect themselves, and then those who do are called victim-blamers.</p>
<p>I am not defending the boy Cardinal, I am defending the process when used properly, and pointing out that in many situations people assume the process didn’t work when in fact maybe it did. If you only know one side of the story how can you be sure. I am simply arguing for due process.</p>
<p>We can condemn Rolling Stone for reckless irresponsibility, for publishing a detailed article without verifying the details. And I do condemn them. That doesn’t mean I have now concluded that nothing happened to Jackie. And it doesn’t mean that I approve the way UVa has handled accusations of sexual misconduct in the past; I don’t.</p>
<p>My own kids and kids-in-law (SOs of my kids) are so far beyond seeing the world in terms of male/female, it is increasingly difficult for me to keep up with them. That is one reason I think the whole issue will get settled by their generation.</p>
<p>With regards to the lifeguard confusion, that is why I said. “Ederly wrote” instead of “Jackie said”. Something that could have been cleared up if the author bothered to investigate or talked to Drew.</p>