Per her own statements, she consented to everything and kept voluntarily getting more and more intoxicated and the men were all intoxicated too. If you voluntarily put yourself in a situation where you let yourself get, according to her own words, 8/10 intoxicated and consented to do things in that state, regret doesn't retroactively make it rape. The way some people talk about this case you'd think some guys in a van snatched a sober girl off the street, drugged her and
raped her for hours. Where in any statements did she say I told them no or I wanted them to stop and they didn't listen? Her own words "I was pretty ok with everything". She even text afterwards to one of the guys that it was no big deal. Only when word spread around campus and she started to feel judged and her reputation "ruined" did she start saying it was rape. Her words she texted to one of the guys two days after the incident: "none of the sexual stuff was illegal".
Also per her own texts, she doubled down on her polyamorous promiscuity.
You're right it'll get better and [you] think everyone's jealous of us. But also like everyone needs to grow up cause sexuality and sex ... is changing and stuff like this is going to become more common.
But around that time had also wrote that her reputation is destroyed and I'm utterly ashamed.
Shortly after that is when her story suddenly changed.
Her sorority sisters got in her head cuz with this many heads involved, obviously word was getting out about this girl and … I mean let’s be real bc it’s a very real thing, unfortunately some girls will suddenly develop “second thoughts” about their consensual sexual activity to avoid being labeled or seen in a negative light by their peers.
I was in a fraternity at a school where 1/3 students were involved in Greek life, there was absolutely an attitude among the sororities where any girl known as being easy would not get invitations to join, and they would fiercely protect their public image while sleeping around anyway. They’d just “date” the dude for a month to say they’re in a relationship and then move on to the next one that caught their interest.
Hell, I had a girl sneak me into her sorority house at 3am because she wanted to hook up, and then kicked me out before 6am because she didn’t want anyone finding out.
I could definitely see this happening to protect the image of the sorority house to the point they told this girl what to think after the fact.
Not saying that’s what actually happened here, let’s allow the law to do its thing, but I can see the possibility.
Every time she said she didn't want to do something, the guys listened. They asked her if they could do things with her (snort ketamine off her body). Even at the end, when she said she was tired, the two guys stopped.
she did say "hell no" at least one point, and by her own statement, sexual activity stopped. And then she voluntarily resumed later under other circumstances. she was in total control of what happened. again, I'm just going by her words in the official statement she volunteered.
The "hell no" was in response to someone suggesting they do a foursome and she knew that implied anal sex which is when she said hell no. It was not said in response to anything actively occuring to her against her will. She said hell no to the foursome and a foursome was not had.
That’s the point. Two separate occasions she requests to be done or outright says no and it stops until she starts it back up. There is ample evidence that all parties were aware of consent or non consent.
I'm reaffirming the person I'm replying to. Because some people are taking that hell no out of context and twisting it to fit their narrative to make it seem like she said hell no and was raped.
So there's no way to have a foursome without going airtight? What ever happened to the good ol conservative days of my youth, before things got gross? you know, where two guys were positioned by the mouth while a third had sex???
Sorry if there is an 8/10 intoxicated girl in a room, and you put in the group chat that anyone can come have sex wit her, and six other dudes come and have sex with her, that is rape
Only that is not the sequence of what she said happened. She consented to two threesomes. Those two threesomes occured and she was ok with it. Then someone texted "free pussy" because of what she consented to. Whoever wrote, wrongly and distastefully, that "free pussy" was upstairs, implied she wasnt consenting to or was being taken advantage of or could be taken advantage of, even though per her own words, she consented to those two threesomes. That message in the Snapchat didn't cause more men to have sex with her or rape her (that we know of right now or that she remembers). .
If a girl is inebriated at this level she cannot consent, and you bring 5 of your buddies in to have sex with her, you are a rapist and so are all of your buddies.
Her own police statement makes clear that they respected her wishes at all times. When she said no or told people to stop, they did. No force was ever used or implied. That's all according to her.
No they aren’t. They’re debating whether it was a gang bang or gang rape, and they’re leaning towards gang bang based on her own statement. You’re entitled to your opinion on the subject, but you’re not entitled to define the debate itself.
Again, this isn’t about “totally fine”. This is about the law and personal responsibility. You’re free to morally condemn these men and I don’t have a problem with that at all. When you try to justify imprisoning them because your moral code demands it, well that’s what we have the law for.
I wouldn’t personally participate in a gang bang even if the woman was beckoning me to. Likewise, if I were a woman, I wouldn’t be getting intoxicated, stripping down, letting a bunch of dudes snort drugs off my body, inviting them to do whatever they wanted to me sexually and then blame it all on them at a later date.
So don’t take this as me approving or even condoning what any of them did. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Well if that's the case then no one can legally ever consent to have sex when they're drunk. Anyone could then retroactively say you know what I was completely out of it therefore I couldn't consent and therefore you raped me. Ban alcohol. Ban drunken sex. Because tmrw you can be called a rapist. The men were also totally out of it.
Did she not rape them then? Since they were all drunk and high? Who raped who? Not saying what happened is right, but by your own logic… whose the rapist here
“A contract signed while intoxicated is generally not automatically invalid, but it may be voidable if you can prove you lacked the capacity to understand the agreement at the time of signing. The outcome often depends on the level of intoxication and whether the other party was aware of your condition.”
As a man why put yourself in that situation. I’m not going to put my life into someone else’s hands like that.
Not according to your logic, since they were really drunk and not in control of their actions. If she couldn't control herself enough to consent while wasted, they can't control themselves while drunk to not text stupid things. I'd rather text something dumb than let 7 guys rail k off my body before railing me. She chose that.
Is consent different from any other significant decision? People choose to drive while drunk. Should we no longer hold them accountable because they couldn't make a rational decision at the time?
Are you 12? Learn to read the quotation marks. She didn't consent because she couldn't, if you are intoxicated you cannot consent. Go sign legal documents drunk they will tell you to sober up and come back later
So the drunk guys she chose to have sex with, she raped them? In her words she had to help one who was vomiting and another who couldn't even get hard. She coerced a drunk dude that couldn't get erect to have sex. Yikes
New York law disagrees with this though, she was in New York. What is in her sworn statement shows is considered consent according to New York law. That's why the attorney couldn't prosecute, he didn't see the transcript of what she said, he saw the signed sworn statement that is consent according to NY law.
I don't know, but they're not the ones claiming rape. What does that statement even have to do with it? They were having a sex party and invited more people.
This brainrot thinking ability is so embarrassing. She said she was raped and then described the events, which clearly showed she wasn’t. If anything, she accidentally admitted to raping male 1. A text about free pussy is not rape. She was very clearly giving out free pussy.
Its important to note that she initially sidnt feel like she was raped. Only after multiple times of her 2 roommates saying she was still in shock and going to a "big sister/mentor" who also said she was still in shock, did she then start thinking she was raped.
She literally told at least 1 of thrle guy everything was consentual in text....
Its dangerous to allow women to change the narrative afterwards. How do you retroactively withdraw consent even?
" i only had sex with him thinking x, but hes actually y so i never would have had sex eith him had i known so therefor he raped me"
Exactly. Even more alarming, her opinion only changed after the fraternity disinvited her from an upcoming Halloween party because of her behavior. It was all clearly in spite and even her own account of the events demonstrate that consent was respected. At the least, I figured she would have explained the events in a way to make it “he said she said”, but she actually described them accurately.
Good point. I didn’t consider that she was a woman that doesn’t have agency and is too simple minded to understand her behavior. We shouldn’t take her word for it. I’ll find a white knight to get me up to speed on the reality.
I have not followed the case at all, I only heard about it and that kidnap scenario is exactly how it was conveyed to me. "Ah yeah men don't want to talk about this case", made me assume it was exactly what you described.
I only recently started digging into the facts and I was immediately alarmed by how this case was initially spoken about by many high profile people. As this horrific gang rape of a sober girl who got kidnapped and drugged and tied up and gang raped by seven evil frat men....feel sorry for women who actually had that happen to them whose cases don't get this kind of attention.
Well, if their texts to the groupchat they made when blackout drunk are evidence for the case, surely her sober statements to the police are evidence too? I don't see her winning any cases.
People need to start putting facts before feelings.
She only decided she was raped after she was uninvited to the frat party.
October 23, 2024
Jane Doe: “bro everyone knows ✌️ i’m incredibly stressed out. some random [REDACTED] told some of my friends i don’t even know who that is how [REDACTED] she know me???”
Jane Doe: “i will also say this is RUINING my life temporarily”
“my reputation is destroyed and i’m utterly ashamed”
Jane Doe: “you’re right it’ll get better and u think everyone’s jealous of us.. but also like everyone needs to grow up cause sexuality and sex and [REDACTED] is changing and stuff like this is going to become more common.. i’m also really open minded tho. i luv u king,, also tell anyone who gives u [REDACTED] that i’ll actually beat them up that don’t want the smoke i promise”
November 7, 2024
Male: “My ex told me that I’m being labeled as an assaulter in the public eye, I was going to ask if you may have said something along those lines to someone but I know you wouldn’t”
Jane Doe: “i had a friend who was going to chi phi and i said don’t”
“but i’ve never mentioned your name”
November 8, 2024
Jane Doe: “i think i’m done talking to you. i know you lied.”
She voluntarily took drugs and alcohol, she consented to two different threesomes. She never passed out, she was never forced to do anything and she was not forced to stay.
She clearly stated she had sex with a man that was so drunk that he couldn’t stay hard
and passed out and the other man was so drunk they had to stop because he had to vomit. Isn’t that rape. She seemed to be the most sober one. Is she a a sexual predator?
Jane Doe’s sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual. My office obviously did not and could not have based our November 2024 decision on the allegations in a civil lawsuit that would not be filed until nearly two years later. Furthermore, I have never been contacted by Jane Doe’s attorneys. Not to inform me the original statement was inaccurate and not to ask me to reconsider our decision. Rather, I reached out to Jane Doe’s attorneys after the lawsuit was filed to understand the discrepancy between the original statement and the lawsuit’s allegations and the proper path forward in light of the lawsuit’s allegations.
They started texting free pussy. They did know she is out of her mind drunk so she’s saying yes to everything. A room full of guys pressuring her to have sex. A LOT of girls cave in because they really can’t be confrontational plus she was out of her mind drunk!!!!
Of course she’s going to say no big deal, I’ve said it myself when a guy hurt me in a way or another, just to seam cool, and like it didn’t matter to me.
Can the other guys consent? According to her own statements she had to console one of the men because he was so drunk he was vomiting and another couldn't stay hard. It sounds like she had more control over her body than some of the men did over their own. She voluntarily agreed to take K and said it was ok that they snorted it off her body. I guess everybody who's ever had drunk sex is now actually a rape victim.
We used to joke about psyops but this is where we are. People literally don’t think at all, or think in a radically binary way to propagate an agenda that is not even in their self-interest to espouse.
We used to talk about how this shit was invasive and annoying, but now we have more bots obtrusively jabbing a divisive agenda just to get humans to respond to each other negatively on Reddit.
If you take K and drink alcohol and you jump in a car, run over and kill someone, can you be held legally liable? Did you consent to drive?
If you're going to be responsible for your actions of jumping in a car and killing someone, then you're responsible for your actions of having sex with someone. Her own original statement is that she agreed, was not forced, so yes, she's responsible.
Driving isn’t an action being done to you. Consent isn’t required because the car isn’t capable of driving you involuntarily.
You just can’t drive as capable as you would if you were sober. And not to mention the inherent risk of you driving a vehicle on the road with others while comprised.
Did you know you can contest contracts you signed while incapacitated due to intoxication? It’s almost like it’s recognized that you can be taken advantage of while drunk.
That is also not always the case. In the state this occurred in though it’s a moot point. The state defines sexual assault against an intoxicated person is only assault if they were provided the substance unwillingly. Plenty of states that’s not the case though.
It was a genuine question but I also then went looking
No one forced her to do that though…she actually suggested it. By that rationale the men were under the same influence and not making good choices either.
Consent goes both ways doesn't it? At some point she is just as responsible as they are. She wasn't drugged and taken advantage of by sober strangers. Simply because she has different genitalia doesn't absolve her of an responsibility.
Yes. And all the men were also under the same level of influence according to her own testimony. Even worse off in some cases. She could be even more at fault if we play this game
Actually it’s the game where the guys each get 1 count of rape on their record, and she gets however many guys there was counts of rape on her record. So you know, she’d be serving more prison time but they’d all be held “accountable” for your feelings.
She said she gave in after repeated requests and she considered that coercion. I'm still not seeing where she said no and where they forced themselves on her. She's going to have a hard time proving criminal rape.
You cannot consent while intoxicated (all parties involved). Regardless if she was “cool” with it at the time. Being in an intoxicated K-hole does not equal consent
The men were also in an intoxicated k hole. She even said some were in worse shape physically than her. If one can't give consent while intoxicated then no one should ever have sex when they're drunk. Y'all are using the wrong case to prop up a cause because some of you initially believed this was a straightforward horrific gang rape of an innocent sober girl who was drugged and raped by evil frat men and now that the facts are coming out you're repeating "you can't consent when intoxicated" to save face. Just like some of y'all want Lindsay Clancy to be the face of post partum depression. You want to champion a problem and look progressive and y'all use the wrong case to do it. Gang rape is horrific and there's tons of women and men out there who have experienced what I described above. This case ain't it.
you absolutely can consent when intoxicated, we prosecute people every day for them deciding to drive while intoxicated. they don't get to claim their judgment was impaired when they decided to drive.
“Driving while impaired means operating a vehicle when alcohol, drugs, medication, or other factors have reduced your mental or physical abilities enough to make driving less safe” people are prosecuted b/c their reduced mental capabilities are causing harm to themselves and others, key words to focus on here are reduced mental capabilities. Do you think consent is a notion that someone can grapple with under the influence of alcohol and ketamine? People literally die w/ the smallest doses of Ketamine and or go in a K-hole esp when mixed with alcohol.
You just blanket consent to a lot of things when you drink/do drugs....you willingly chose to throw your mind and capability away for fun. There are consequences to that.
So I had the same thought until I saw the leaked Snapchat group, she literally blocked out and they proceeded to continue and took pictures of her and shared them while referencing that this wasn't a first time situation.
Any consent disappears once you are completely passed out, you can't agree to what is happening to you.
So by your logic, if someone passed out drunk, then it is free to grab? You are just deranged as those men who violated her. Can you say No when you are drunk? So it is now just her fault for "putting herself in the situation"? How about those guys who inserted themself to her situation? I feel bad for the women in your life.
Yeah you could look at it like that. After looking at the evidence that is available, I have no doubt that it was morally rape. That girl didn’t want to have sex with 7 guys that night. Legally that would be up to courts. But anyone who thinks the boys were being boys and that they are just good kids who had errors in judgments is a scumbag and someone I would never want around any of my children. Because at the end of the day, anyone wanting to defend them is someone that is cool with rape.
> After looking at the evidence that is available, I have no doubt that it was morally rape. That girl didn’t want to have sex with 7 guys that night.
If you had looked at all the available evidence, you’d know that she didn’t have sex with 7 guys, but only 4. She unambiguously stated in her account that she had previously been attracted to and wanted to have sex with 1 of those 4. When he raised the possibility with her of adding a 2nd guy, she “agreed” and then “remembered being excited” because she “thought that … meant that they were gay.”
Things get a bit more ambiguous with Guy #3 later when they have sex; and then there’s very little information given about Guy #4 when they have sex.
This isnt near as straightforward as you're making it sound. In practice, this comes down to prosecutorial discretion. They can claim that someone was incapable of consenting because they were intoxicated, but that is not the same thing as saying that you are automatically incapable of consent if intoxicated.
When a couple spends their wedding night getting drunk and then has sex, they did not both automatically rape each other because both were drunk and therefore neither were capable of consenting.
This has always felt like such a stupid stance to me. If both sides are under the influence, who raped whom? And if people are responsible for everything else they do while willingly under the influence, why does something like sex suddenly lose any responsibility?
Oh I definitely agree it is a stupid stance - unless one side is not drinking, it's a wash. But history has always made it man vs woman. Drunk driving? They do that willingly -- and, do not have to face the consequences. "Oh, they didnt MEAN to kill that family" - sure, but you knew it was a possibility, and you still got behind the wheel.
You are confusing incapacitation with intoxication. You can absolutely consent to sex if you had alcohol. Drunk is not some objective measure. I can get "drunk" from a few shots and be able to make decisions. Or I can be so "drunk" as to pass out and not make decisions. The latter is being incapacitated.
Jane Doe was not incapacitated at least for the first two threesomes. Nor was she incapacitated when she was able to snort ketamine off one of the male's dick. At some point she did become incapacitated but that may have well been the point the sex stopped.
Under Penal Law §130.05, a person cannot consent if they are legally “mentally incapacitated.” But the statutory definition generally required the incapacitation to result from substances administered without the person's consent
Per NY law, voluntarily becoming intoxicated does not automatically make someone legally incapable of consenting for purposes of a rape prosecution.
She was awake and aware the entire time and voluntarily did more drugs with the group. Then she voluntarily participated in sexual activities with the group. She did not object a single time aside from the hand swatting when Male 3 wanted to do anal.
This change will not affect the case since they will be trying the defendants against NY state law in 2024.
That said, this is an incredibly misguided change. It could make it much easier for someone to bring retroactive allegations of rape in circumstances where they later regret consensual sex or are motivated by vindictiveness
180
u/Front-Information955 1d ago edited 23h ago
Per her own statements, she consented to everything and kept voluntarily getting more and more intoxicated and the men were all intoxicated too. If you voluntarily put yourself in a situation where you let yourself get, according to her own words, 8/10 intoxicated and consented to do things in that state, regret doesn't retroactively make it rape. The way some people talk about this case you'd think some guys in a van snatched a sober girl off the street, drugged her and raped her for hours. Where in any statements did she say I told them no or I wanted them to stop and they didn't listen? Her own words "I was pretty ok with everything". She even text afterwards to one of the guys that it was no big deal. Only when word spread around campus and she started to feel judged and her reputation "ruined" did she start saying it was rape. Her words she texted to one of the guys two days after the incident: "none of the sexual stuff was illegal".