<p>
</p>
<p>One has to wonder about the lack of self righteous outrage given the Rutgers thing. </p>
<p>It certainty appears the level (if any) of genuine outrage depends upon the the race/gender/sexual orientation of the one being victimized. </p>
<p>[Duke</a> Winces as a Private Joke Slips Out of Control](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/us/08duke.html?hp]Duke”>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/us/08duke.html?hp)</p>
<p>The Rutgers Indecent</p>
<p>???</p>
<p>LOL^^ Parents, too, need their dictionaries enabled. </p>
<p>As for the INCIDENT at Duke, it has been discussed within the Rutgers thread, and all over the net on the sites which have published the “Thesis”. The lawsuits are in the works, the author has apologized, the “victims” who were ranked in the top don’t seem to be complaining, and probably the ones at the bottom are mortified.</p>
<p>I thought the use of indecent was a play on words, given the topic.</p>
<p>This has already been discussed in the thread in the Parents’ Forum (not the cafe) thread about Clementi’s suicide. </p>
<p>These are two entirely different situations. If the facts in the Rutgers incident are as alleged, a crime was committed. In the Duke incident, no crime was committed. There is no law against bragging about your sexual escapades. As others have said, men have been doing it for years. I think it’s disgusting when young men do it and I think it’s disgusting when young women do it. But for one person to brag about the people (s)he slept with and rate their “performance” is not the same as turning on a camera to watch a sexual encounter between two other people without their knowledge or consent. </p>
<p>Moreover, she isn’t the one who posted it on the internet. It was originally a joke shared with three friends. She has done her best to get the info off the internet–both deadspin and jezebel have removed the subjects’ names and blurred their faces at her request. </p>
<p>I think the “thesis” was in remarkably poor taste, but I don’t see the men who engaged in mostly drunken hook ups voluntarily as “victims.” I can’t imagine the basis for any law suit unless she claimed to have sex with someone she didn’t had sex with.</p>
<p>Ms. Owen showed poor taste, but I’m not sure what crime was committed. These guys voluntarily slept with a girl who lacks discretion. I think she looks worse than most of the guys. Pathetic, really. I do see the guys as victims, because I think most people who have sex with someone don’t expect to see pics of themselves and their prowess or lack thereof spread all over the internet. Again, not victims in that a crime was committed against them but victims of a woman who holds them in such low regard that she’s willing to use them in order to draw attention to herself.</p>
<p>I know some will say that she didn’t intend for it to go viral. Hmmmm. I’ll believe that when she turns down the book and movie offers.</p>
<p>
And in what regard did the young men hold HER? Didn’t they use her to their own ends as well, albeit different ones?</p>
<p>
Agreed. And now it’s her ball-game. And the balls are just flying at her. Wait…
that doesn’t sound quite right. </p>
<p>I look forward to your cards and letters. ;)</p>
<p>The thread title is misleading. These two incidents are nowhere near to being the same.</p>
<p>Curm – too, too funny. As usual.</p>
<p>I seem to recall something almost exactly the same being written by a female MIT student back in the 70s. Kiss and tell is nothing new, alas, although always in poor taste.</p>
<p>Why, the entire literary career of Erica Jong was based on it. She even described her husbands’ genitalia.</p>
<p>sylvan, they certainly seemed to deserve each other. If both parties are up (hmm, there’s that curm influence) for lots of no-strings sex, well, they’re adults so no harm, no foul. But the guys didn’t write a thesis on her sexual abilities complete with pictures and send it around campus.</p>
<p>No law broken? It is possible that to show the pics without the consent of the subject could be invasion of privacy, much like what is charged(at the moment) in the Rutgers case.</p>
<p>from post 5: "but I don’t see the men who engaged in mostly drunken hook ups voluntarily as “victims.” I would agree with this if it means victims of sex. AND if it applies to women too. If it refers to that they are not victims if their pics were shown without their consent, because they consented to sex, then I disagree. </p>
<p>While it didn’t say such a thing in post 5, sometimes women are given a “pass” when it comes to responsibility for drunken voluntary hook-ups, or drunken risque photos. Some have put the responsibility for the drinking guys decisions on the guy, but the drinking woman’s decisions on the guy too- with the notion that the guy should interpret that the girl is drunk- He should have said NO, though she was saying yes, because he should have known her best judgment was impaired. Can’t agree with that. No means no, but yes means yes.
A clarification- I am referring to men and women who say yes while boozing, when they might have said no otherwise. I am not referring to anyone that is passed out and cannot answer.</p>
<p>hoss, I’m assuming she got those pics off FB so they’re already in the “public” domain.</p>
<p>today show today seemed to think this could be an invasion of privacy case…she distributed their names etc without permission.</p>
<p>younghoss, I’m in complete agreement on the consent issue.</p>
<p>Some years ago–more than forty I would guess–long before the Internet and the possiblity that something could literally be sent around the world, my wise mother told me that I should never write anything down that I would not want the whole world to see. Now aren’t there a lot of young people who would benefit from following that OLD advice?</p>
<p>And being a CC addict, I often wonder if these young people who attend some of the finest institutions this country offers and make these total boehead decisions were in the bottom quartile.</p>
<p>Had this been a guy doing “research” and posting it about girls, there would be much more of an uproar. If one of the “subjects” had committed suicide because of it, would it be getting the same scrutiny as the Rutgers situation?</p>
<p>Damn the Internet. Things like this were much simpler when merely written on the walls in bathroom stalls. </p>
<p>BTW–females rating the performance of males isn’t new. And, big pharm is NOW making a killing with Viagra to improve male performance for a price.</p>
<p>Jocks rated on a jock-performance scale. Priceless. GO DUKE!</p>
<p>Looking at the photos, it’s extremely unlikely she took any of them. Many seem to be official team photos. Some may have been lifted from a yearbook. Breach of copyright, maybe…invasions of privacy for distributing the photos? Highly unlikely. </p>
<p>The “thesis” went viral in large part because of the actions of fraternities. The “thesis” was posted on several fraternity listserves. Somehow, I get the distinct impression that the guys who got high rankings weren’t all that upset about it. And I suspect that there were more than a few frat guys who kind of enjoyed the fact that a couple of well known jocks got “dised” for their sexual performance. My understanding is that deadspin, which is certainly read by far more males than females, originally “published” it in its lacrosse gossip column. </p>
<p>Consolation is right. There was a similar case at MIT. It was a guide to the performance of specified MIT males distributed to freshman girls. The authors were disciplined by MIT. </p>
<p>There is a not entirely dissimilar case brought by a law prof which has been winding its way through the courts for about 5 years now. (See abovethelaw for more.)</p>
<p>And I respectfully disagree with catera. The only reason this made the news was the fact that it was done by a female. It is clear in the description that she was drunk out of her mind during some of the encounters, and she didn’t blame anyone for taking advantage of her.</p>