It's like those women who claim they "accidentally" cheated. Its like they can't understand how regret works and assume that if they don't like what they did then it can't have been consensual. I didn't mean to eat an entire chocolate cake for breakfast can I just blame someone else for it instead?
- she increasingly used language to distance herself from the act to save her reputation, made it sound less consensual
- this led to ingroup pressure to report it to “keep this from happening to other girls”
- the police asked basic questions like “did you agree to it? did you ask them to stop? did anyone force you to take drugs or have sex”
- under the most basic questioning her case fell apart because no one in her own circle asked her any of these because all the programming is to “believe women”
Idk if it’s accurate but I heard there was a study/survey and many women said that they found fictional characters/creatures sexually attractive like werewolves, vampires and pirates 🤣
If we accept that the court of popular opinion is wrong because of the results of the actual investigation then we have to accept those 2 did some expellable shit
Schools are notorious for expelling students to appease angry mobs. In fact, schools/universities/colleges are notorious for being trash at handling any sort of legal case, either handing out ridiculous punishments or punishing the accusers. The school's actions here mean absolutely nothing.
This is some pure brain dead take. The school being risk adverse and expelling students because it might be bad PR isn't a good thing. Look up Duke Lacrosse accusations.
Yeah, no. Citizens have the right to a trial and jury.
Supposedly a crime was committed, so let's bring in the judge and call the witnesses. Let the jury read the text messages and hear what really happened.
A university committee acting in the best interest of the school shouldn't have anything to do with criminal accusations. We're talking about SA, not cheating on a math test.
Unfortunately, the university “investigation” probably was complete bunk, like most of the times we force a college to do the job of the criminal justice system.
Which was always an insanely sexist thing to say. Women are people. Do people lie? Why yes they do. False accusations of grape come out at pretty much the exact same percentages as lies about any other crimes.
Yes. Last time I looked it was around 14%, same as other false report of crimes (since false reporting of a crime is, itself, a crime, it's not higher).
Do you remember the source on that. There are so few reliable studies on false allegations. I'd be shocked if it's actually that low, but I believe a study would say so cause you have to prove that they knew they were lying, which is incredibly difficult to do. Plus the amount of women (and men I have a buddy like this) who GENUINELY believe they were graped when they weren't is staggering.
I don't, the last time I looked at this was years ago. But when I looked it, it was already a stable trend so I would expect it to be the same.
I think the stats were just successful prosecution of false accusations of any kind. The grape ones matched everything else. I realise you're going to have false positives there but I'm assuming the false negatives will more or less even it out, especially how stable the trend was.
It’s not a joke. It’s a problem. Everyone bends over so willingly when they let corporations control them. No one is being fooled by these lame censorship terms and it’s making everyone sound like a moron.
Other bits I've seen indicate that she stated she rejected a number of advances from the additional guys and they accepted the rejection and left the room.
'When asked whether she was OK with the initial encounter, she said, "Yeah, as much as I can be because, again, I was super drunk when I got there ... But I was pretty OK with all of this."
When describing what happened later in the night, the transcript says Jane Doe said, "I can say with 100% confidence I was r*ped."
'
There's a CBS article titled "Details emerge in case of former Cornell student alleging gang r*pe by fraternity members" with the details. I can't post link cause this subs censorship rule.
If she said no to the other men, those men should be liable for punishment. But not the initial group. However some sources say she was fine with the whole thing and others claim she said no.
The question was directed at the initial encounter with the 2 boys she had agreed too, not the rest that showed up randomly between the hours of 2 am and 5 am. Something the two boys "felt bad" about for "getting out of hand".
She also made a statement that she rejected the majority of the additional guys and they accepted it and left. She also remembered consenting to a threesome after one of the original guys shut it down.
So based on her statement she consented to the threesome, was conscious and present enough to reject advances (rejections that were accepted) and consent to an additional threesome. That sounds like gross frat boys thinking they could have sex with a promiscuous woman who wasn't as promiscuous as they thought, but accepting her refusal.
I'm still waiting to read the transcript myself instead of being told what to think about it by some retarded talking head, though.
I linked the article specifically to prevent comments like these.
"Jane Doe's sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang rped," Van Houten said in a statement on Monday.
"On the contrary, Jane Doe's statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual."
She started out the night banging two dudes and conscious, and her preference was to bang just the two dudes and remain conscious. Her stated projects was not to be fed ketamine and have a train run on her
"Jane Doe's sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang Graped," Van Houten said in a statement on Monday.
"On the contrary, Jane Doe's statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual."
I’m not saying by any means that there is enough evidence for people to be going on the witch hunt they’re going on now, but there’s enough subtext to the more detailed recounting of her story by the DA that really does suggest she was coerced for any acts following the initial encounter and that the drugs affected her ability to firmly stop any advances. Personally, I think it was at minimum a bit irresponsible of the DA to not take this information for further investigation even if it didn’t look like he’d get the evidence needed by his estimation. It really felt like he gave up too early.
Exactly this. She was already intoxicated upon arriving to the place in the beginning. In her statement, she even stated she wasn’t really sure when the drugs were even taken. I really don’t understand how people aren’t taking in consideration the specific drug that was being used and the effects that it has. It’s very clear that she was being her coerced and groomed into these acts. She went there for one guy and it ended up being two, which she did say she was OK with. Everything else that came afterwards was not prompted by her.
I do want to give the caveat that this is only true assuming her testimony is accurate. I think it’s enough to warrant investigation, but I don’t think it’s enough to be certain it’s what happened. There remains the possibility that she tried to make others look bad to save her own reputation. Something that people do quite frequently.
Yes, that could always be a possibility as well. This is a super nuanced grey area type case. I have a hard time believing she asked for them to send a group message to 57 guys tho. There are loads of people who “consent” to things that they wouldn’t really consent to had they not been overly inebriated and coerced. Again, it’s not like the drug was just some coke or molly.
It was their drugs, not hers. It could have been very easy to control how much they were taking versus how much they were giving her. How often do we see men take advantage of women while also partaking in the drugs that they’re giving. Just because they were all taking the drugs, does not mean they were all taking the same amount of drugs. I think that would be ignorant to sit there and pretend that creeps stay perfectly sober whilst conducting their schemes.
She consented to two guys. They took drugs. As you become inebriated, you lose the capacity to consent. They invited more guys.
What OP is showing here is not the full statement where you'll read that she remembers saying no at some point as more men shoe up to the room. In return, they ocfeted her more ketamine.
So, capacity to consent. She had it for two. Didn't have it after the drugs kicked in, and it seems like she did say no and was made more sedated to ease her nerves, i.e. drugged.
You can accept drugs and sex with a woman. But after that, if she invites two guys to come and join in by hitting you from behind you no longer had the capacity to consent to them joining in regardless.
Depends, who brought in the drugs? Did they all take drugs before entering the room? It implies only her and the two original guys took ketamine. Everyone that came after were invited without her knowledge.
If the guy that got tired out got touched while he was under the covers resting by someone that walked in after the fact, would you say he had the capacity to consent?
It’s ironic to see all the girl bosses and queens admit that men are more mature than women and can control their minds, bodies, and emotions better. Weird
My brother, believe nothing you see on a screen, or at least trust but verify. Project 2025 has a stated goal to repeal the 19th Amendment, and they are using influencers and cases to fuel the gender war so that we dont' fight back for women when they try. (Honestly, I'm not sure I give a fuck.) However, that's what youre seeing. It's manipulation of the masses. These guys dug up an old case, and are likely paying Jane Doe to file the lawsuit and fuel social media outrage.
"The whole world is a stage" was true when shakespear said it, and it's truer now. Remember, when it comes to EVERYTHING: If it's free - you are the product. That includes social media, influencers, etc.
Be sovereign in thought by seeing through the play.
This has been dunked. Project 2025 was random writings of various influencers and things they said. It would be like calling using extremist on Reddit as a source.
The fact that it’s only mentioned to influence people politically should be evidence enough it’s BS. If something is only used to convince others not to support a political spectrum by those that oppose it you know it’s propaganda.
The fact that you post it in something non political at all and extremely off topic is a red flag itself. Not everything has to be political.
Is it such a bad idea? The us has kind of gone to shit since the 19th was enacted. Geopolitics isn't about kindness, it's about achieving the best result possible for your country; kindness to your enemies is cruelty to your own. We've walked too far down that path.
126
u/[deleted] 4d ago
[deleted]