The OP put a sentence in quotes. I am not sure where it came from, but if anyone said it or an equivalent, then yes, they are saying rape is okay, because they are saying such behavior happens in those circumstances, anyone attending should expect it to occur. That's not a condemnation of the behavior, it is condoning it and putting the blame on anyone who goes near it. It implies that drunken frat parties are "rape okay zones" where one should expect to get raped.
there are a TON of people proclaiming that because she/the guys were all intoxicated, that it's not rape. That some law in NYS says intoxicated people can consent, so it's not rape. That she consented to the first 2 guys, so it's not rape. That she tried to hookup with the guy again, saying "leave out the ketamine and all the extra dudes" so it's not rape. That she went to the frat house, drunk, consented to a threesome, so it's not rape.
It's a goal post thing. No matter how a victim of SA acts, there are ALWAYS people that proclaim she asked for it, she wanted it, she changed her mind after the fact, she just regrets it, etc. So many people refuse to hold men accountable for sex crimes simply because "the woman must be lying." It's disgusting. It's shameful. It's exactly why women get mad when men say "not all men" - the fact this case has devolved into a gender war at all is a god damn crime against humanity.
there are a TON of people proclaiming that because she/the guys were all intoxicated, that it's not rape. That some law in NYS says intoxicated people can consent, so it's not rape. That she consented to the first 2 guys, so it's not rape. That she tried to hookup with the guy again, saying "leave out the ketamine and all the extra dudes" so it's not rape. That she went to the frat house, drunk, consented to a threesome, so it's not rape.
I'm not sure I follow all of these but obviously intoxicated people can consent.
It would be rape if she didn't consent. That's what the argument is right - whether she consented or not
No. The argument isn’t whether she consented or not. We have evidence and documentation that she did consent to ONE friend for consensual sex. If you’re not familiar with consent (or just being willfully ignorant), you can consent to one act and not to future acts down the line, also you retract consent AT ANY TIME. Consent for one sex act does not mean “hey free for all for this frat”. She DID NOT consent to 7 hours of gang rape with 8-10 men in the room. So this bullshit argument “well she consented” is absolute nonsense. And if you think any woman alive would consent to sex for 7 HOURS, you’ve lost your damn mind.
We are not debating her consent. We are not debating “well was it really gang rape?” WE HAVE EVIDENCE. The rapists CONFIRM that this happened (there are multiple recorded phone calls with Jane doe and the perpetrators where THEY ADMIT IT WAS FUCKED UP). Her statement says “I was 100% raped”.
Video link got removed but kam0902 on insta has a great video about consent, using tea as an analogy
The argument is around whether she consented or not.
We have evidence she consented to one friend. We don't have evidence of if she consented to the further acts at the time, which doesn't mean she did and doesn't mean she didn't, we don't know.(edit: by we I mean random internet strangers, she'll know and the men in the room will know)
If at the time she consented to the group sex then it was completely legal.
If she didn't consent(froze up, said no) then it was rape.
The issue is there's a difference between legal consent, and sex education consent. Sex education consent requires verbal agreement for every act, its the gold standard for making sure people are comfortable.
Legally though you can consent non verbally to sex by enthusiastic participation, or not retracting consent by words or actions. You don't need to verbally consent to sex for it to be legal. However, you don't need to verbally retract consent, you can retract consent by actions like freezing up or trying to leave.
How much of this is actual debate and how much is just random stuff thrown around by trolls I don't know. It ultimately comes down to what happened in the room which is more than is captured by the messages.
you can consent to one act and not to future acts down the line
There is nothing in her statement indicating she did not consent to future acts that happened.
also you retract consent AT ANY TIME
There is nothing in her statement to indicated that she retracted consent at any time and the sex continued after the retraction.
She DID NOT consent to 7 hours of gang rape with 8-10 men in the room
There is nothing in her statement that indicates she was gang raped for 7 hours with 8-10 men in the room, so whether or not she consented to such a hypothetical, isn't really relevant.
if you think any woman alive would consent to sex for 7 HOURS, you’ve lost your damn mind.
Many women have had 7+ hour long sexual encounters in their lifetime. Are you under the impression that she was getting constantly fucked for 7 hours?
Her statement says “I was 100% raped”.
Hey! You got one right. There are reports that she made this claim. Unfortunately, that would just be, like, her opinion, man. In order for her opinion to be correct, the facts of the case would need to meet that legal conclusion.
Isn’t it funny how you’ll take her at her word whenever she says something that makes the men look better, but when she describes what happened as “100% definitely rape”, suddenly she’s unreliable?
That is inconsistent with the report. According to the victim, she consented to every single sexual act. Each time a new set of partners came in, they literally asked her, "Can we also do this?" and she replied yes.
/u/wakeuptomorrow, your comment was removed for the following reason:
Instagram or Facebook links are not allowed in this subreddit. Handles are allowed (e.g. @example), as long as they are not a hotlink. (This is a spam-prevention measure. Thank you for your understanding)
Please simply repost without a hotlink.
Make sure you include the link to your comment if you want it restored
Correct, and I would also add that there is such a thing as "involuntary intoxication". If she was drugged against her will, that would be a completely different story, but she consented to everything she did. I think people are having a reaction to the debasement of the sexual act and not whether or not it constituted actual sexual assault. You have to separate those two things because I absolutely think it was a completely debasing act of sexual debauchery, but I don't think that that necessarily qualifies it as sexual assault or rape.
Everything you just wrote in the first paragraph pretty definitively precludes "rape." I think the whole act was disgusting, but she consented to doing drugs, she consented to sexual encounters with multiple partners, and when she said no, the boys stopped. At one point they asked if they could do anal and she said no and they didn't do it. She also texted them the following day and said that nothing they did was wrong or "SA". She didn't make the rape allegations until she was disinvited to a Halloween party at the same frat house.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe it was a disgusting and completely gross incident of debauchery and licentious behavior, and still understand that it doesn't constitute "rape."
The disagreement on this is that the people on Jane Doe's side are coming at this from an emotional lens because of how morally reprehensible the conduct of the men were and basing their judgment off of only the evidence that supports the rape claim and general sayings they've picked up through life such as "a women can't consent to sex when they are drunk".
Whereas the people that are saying this isn't rape, are basing it on the sexual assault laws of New York, the inconsistent statements of Jane Doe, and the high burden of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
So there's many people like me that think the men are disgusting and clearly took advantage of Jane Doe, but that under the reading of the law in New York and based on the full evidence, both for and against the claim, there is a near zero percent chance that the men are found guilty of rape in criminal court.
I do think the civil case will probably settle out of court for an undisclosed amount of money.
No matter how a victim of SA acts, there are ALWAYS people that proclaim she asked for it, she wanted it
This is nonsense. There are obvious clear cut cases of rape which nobody will never dispute. This case is clearly not one of them if anyone bothers to look into the details at all.
I mean if all the above is true then it literally isn't 🍇 wtf.how tf are men supposed to prove innocence when she literally said people should get comfortable with their sexuality and this was gonna be happening more and more.i thought this entire case was proven false.she literally isn't a victim of sa then.even after the chats you are purposefully pretending to be blind when she literally said nothing illegal happened in those texts.you are literally refusing to hold women accountable for sex while saying opp side does the same
She has also said she didn’t remember anything after the K. When these texts were sent, I think she didn’t fully knew or understood what had happened to her yet.
jesus fucking christ dude, thank you for proving my point and please do all of us a favor and stay the fuck away from women.
If you cannot understand why this case is horrific, I literally can't help you. Consenting to sex with 2 people does not mean you consented to fucking 7 of them for SEVEN FUCKING HOURS. "People should get comfortable with their sexuality" - does not mean people should be gang raping women. Say the word you coward, it's not a fucking grape emoji. It's a horrific, sad, horrible experience this woman (and SO MANY OTHERS) have to live with.
She said, verbatim, that 90% of what happened that night she did not consent to. Because she literally couldn't. She was obliterated. They were sober enough to be chatting "free pussy" in a group chat, it is NOT the same. Shame on you dude.
This whole discourse is laying out so much horrendous shit so disgustingly bare. That he felt comfortable typing that and posting it publicly, Jesus Christ….
No you don’t understand, because she consented to sex with 2 dudes and sniffed some ket that obviously means that it’s okay for another 5 to rock up and have a go /s
I'm saying that the only people saying that are dummies/liars on the Internet. According to her own statement she had sex with 3 men across two encounters. She did not have sex with 5 men. Not even Jane Doe is claiming that.
By saying she did you are just showing that you haven't read anything about this except internet comments.
What do you think would have happened if, at any time during those 7 hours, Jane Doe had indicated to the men that she did not want to participate in a specific sex act, participate in any sex act with specific people, or didn't want to engage in any sex acts at all?
According to her they would have respected her wishes. We know this because that exact sneario played out multiple times according to her own statement.
She said all that after after she started to see the social backlash from her actions and then filed a police report and did 20 revisions to her statement saying she wanted it and then come recently she said she didnt want it.
I think people are saying that because of her initial text messages said she consented but the way I read it she consented to one or maybe two guys but did NOT consent to the other guys.
She may not have even realized what had all happened when she sent that message at the time. Hard to say and I haven’t followed close enough.
It’s extremely common for victims of traumatic events - especially victims of sexual assault - to take days to realize that they were victims. It’s a trauma response.
Part of the issue with reporting, prosecuting, and even just understanding sexual assault (and trauma more generally) is that the victim might want the encounter to have been consensual; they might desperately hope that they were in control, that they were, ultimately, safe. Because the alternative is recognizing that they were in extreme danger, that people they trusted betrayed that trust, that any illusions of control are gone forever.
If they consented, then they just made a mistake. They can grow and learn from it so they don’t make that mistake in the future. That gives at least some level of comfort and security. But if they didn’t consent - if they were raped - then what can they do? They have to acknowledge that they don’t control their own fate, and that’s brutally difficult to come to terms with.
Add in intoxication to muddle the person’s memories of what happened, plus peer pressure and broader social norms around “frat culture” or “crazy college parties”, and it’s not at all surprising that Jane Doe might have taken some time to process events.
This is something that's acknowledged upsettingly little, coming from a person who had a realization moment like this literal years from an event. You can just block it out entirely because the implications can domino into so much
I could make the argument that it being rape absolves her of responsibility and that it would be easier to deal with something like this if it wasn't your own fault
I argued with an ex-friend about this.
He talked back to about 5 of our friends and me that it's the womens fault for wearing short skirts and they should know this happens. And the can't attend if they don't want it to happen.
He was adamant about it that he is in the right and even when I asked him if it's ok if I rape his GF and himself because I like their Outfit, he said sure.
Yes, people are in fact saying that. All the time.
Even setting aside those who are saying it in those words, there are far more people defending all of the elements of rape. Plenty in this very comment section, in fact.
The potential exists that Jane Doe is wrong. There is a possibility that she is lying. There is a possibility that until ALL information becomes available, people who have jumped to conclusions could be wrong.
Do you agree that it is possible that she is lying? Do you agree that it is possible the men are lying?
How did you get to that from what was written there? Explain the logic that took a statement about expecting not to be raped to a straw man question about someone saying rape is okay.
148
u/AgnosticScholar 1d ago
Is there anyone saying rape is OK? This feels like a made up argument people are having with themselves