This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm bringing back the Cornell incident from last week, because I think I have something to add to the topic (albeit that it took a little while rolling around in my head). For those who have already said it outside of my notice, please accept my apologies for the terrible crime of being dull.
Most discourse around the Cornell incident is about whether it was rape. From a fact-finding perspective, I find the first account submitted to the police most plausible, and that does not sound like rape to me. But what I notice is that we, the audience, have been forced to accept the form of the question. As in, is the relevant question about this event whether or not it was rape? (If you are one of the defendants or are on the jury, obviously it is, but I don't think any of us are.) What question has been suppressed by the overpowering presence of the rape question?
Again, I believe that the first account given to the police is most likely true. If so, what happened here? Seven men, one women, and a substantial amount of alcohol and ketamine spent an evening experimenting with different configurations of which was inside, outside, or on top of which. The events seem to have been broadly consensual but severely underinhibited and quite inadvisable. After this, the human participants went their separate hungover ways, and their relationship swiftly deteriorated. This apparently reached a tipping point after the men's fraternity's president disinvited the woman from a Halloween party, at which point she started accusing them of rape. What are we to make of this?
The natural direction to look is in the direction of the woman. Was she sober enough? Was she just some crazy slut? Was she vindictive, hell hath no fury yadda yadda? I don't see a need to. Obviously I disapprove of the actions she took and would be appalled if my daughter were to do anything like it (and, of course, wondering how I raised her so). But she's not my daughter, she's in no way involved with my life, and being free means being free to make bad choices. But overall, prior to the rape accusations (again, obviously a big deal, but only after the fact), her only crime was that she "loved too much," as it were. She did not hurt anyone with her frankly wildly out of control actions, except possibly herself. What I'm interested in here is the men. What do I note from them, what do I see? How did they treat her?
They treated her like a piece of meat. Sure, they had a couple of consensual if intoxicated threesomes with her, and that much is fine if fairly gross. But after that, they started texting each other about "free pussy." The latecomers wandered in awkwardly looking for action, and the original parties just let whoever come in, what's the matter? They barely knew her at this point. After the event, they seem only to have been involved with her as far as making sure the event wouldn't reflect badly on them, no interest in her whatsoever. (I think the slant most people draw from this is that they were worried about being accused of rape; I'm wondering if they were actually worried about everyone knowing how much they loved having sex with their bros.) "Wow, that was a wild night, huh? Well, good knowing you." And under mysterious circumstances, general knowledge of this wild night starts getting around, so the fraternity president now knows enough about this one chick to disinvite her specifically from a party.
Listen, I get that people are gonna have wild and crazy and frankly stupid sex sometimes, stuff that I look down on. But this chick was putting out for them, putting herself out for them, and a man has at least some obligations in response to that. These guys just tried to get laid and then drop her like a hot potato, and while it's not absolutely clear to me that it was them spreading the knowledge that she'd been fuckin', it seems a little more plausible than that her sorority sisters wanted it common knowledge that they harbored sluts. They felt entitled to her body at face-value terms, that "consent" was the only thing needed, and they weren't even obliged to provide the "thank you ma'am." In short, they disrespected her severely, and by disrespecting her so severely, transmuted her essence from "fun woman" or even "nice, sweet girl who made a mistake" into "crazy slut," because the only person you can get away with doing that to is "crazy slut." So, in her rage, she decided to become "victim of sexual violence" so that they would have to stop being "lucky horndogs" and start being "frat bro rapists." But once she does that, it's not just those men who become "rapists," it puts people like the DA and the school into that category, so now it becomes a much larger problem. And now everyone starts fighting over whether that last move was legal or not, whether she has to do a takeback or get issued a game loss, and nobody looks at the earlier move. Were they allowed to turn her into a slut just because she slept around?
This is what I think is supercharging the debate. The seven young men, individually and as a group, acted like total fucking cads, and they were getting away with it. There's no law against acting like a cad, and worse, there's not even a real social punishment. My own personal feelings and standards aside (where yes, I'd probably ice a boy like that out without very strong evidence he'd reformed), the general attitude is that all they needed to do was get consent, and that's the end of their obligations. After that, they just "got lucky" and who cares what's up with her, she can take care of herself, she's got equal rights. They got to go to the Halloween party and she didn't. Excuse me? Then why did she have all that sex? Just for the love of the game? I'm not going to accuse every swipe-addicted TikTok drone of having such deep thoughts about it, but the zeitgeist WILL make itself known. She was mistreated by those men, who allowed her to have sex with them even though they had no intention of returning any of that favor. Her sex was taken for granted, taken advantage of, but we do not punish that, not when it's Cornell frat bros, not when it's fuckboy ghosters, not when it's long-term live-in boyfriends who won't fucking propose. The only thing we do punish is rape, and so it had to be rape.
--
I know this has been a long and meandering post, and expect it will be appreciated if I lay out a pretty explicit thesis. If you like rhetoric as an art, sorry, pretend this doesn't exist.
The rape accusations are born out of women's rage as a collective. Not all women individually, and individual women are not here obligated to avow or disavow this rage, but as a group it suffuses them. The rage is over men's, as a collective, perceived ability to dodge consequences for sex. Again, not all men individually, etc. The rage does not have to be proportionate. It does not have to be satisfied in the ways it demands; indeed this is a poor way to handle rage. But it is aggravated by any incident where a woman is forced to pay for sex while a man is not. The only way out I personally see is to deny that asking her consent is sufficient repayment for a woman's sex, and look down on men who attempt that. But that is a stance I was already happy to take.
I cannot be a feminist because my opinion of women is too high.
See, I hear all these tales about female weakness or incapacity or feeble-mindedness, told when needed to rescue a sister out of a scrape, but if I were to list them all out, they would add up to a picture of women as the most fragile and pathetic creatures that, from my own life, I know isn't true.
That is: when is a woman actually responsible for her own actions, without her biology or psychology getting in the way? I have heard:
So, best-case scenario (no pregnancy or trauma,) that makes a total quantity of two-and-a-half years of a woman's entire life when she's a responsible adult. (I'm sure I haven't thought of something; those two-and-a-half years seem mightily exposed on their own...)
In this case, what we are hearing that some of Jane Doe's key behavior after the gang-rape, which seems, to the naïve observer, completely incongruous with it having been a gang-rape, is actually a "textbook trauma response.: "Fawn," so they say. Don't you know? It's not just "fight or flight," but actually "fight, flight, or freeze." No: "fight, flight, freeze, or fawn." No: I've even heard "friend" added to the list. (One can only wonder what other words are going to join up.)
Now, people do not actually behave as though all of the proffered excuses are true. It seems almost that they are facts that are only supposed to exist when convenient. We are certainly not supposed to treat women as these zero-resilience headcases buffeted about by their wandering wombs if that means infringing on something that they want to do (like, to say the least: vote,) even if that's a responsibility we would under no circumstances want to leave to such a miserable creature.
So I say no to all that. No to the omnipotent trauma excuse. No to the idea that women are uniquely vulnerable to, and excused from good behavior due to, their hormones (I would say that a man is a good man to the same degree that he executes self-control over his own hormonal [testosterone] impulses; I would hold a woman to the same standards, perimenopause or no.) This is what equality means. This is, for all my own life has told me, what being an adult of either sex means.
The nuance is, though, that most of these omnipotent excuses are exaggerations of real things. ("No to youth as an excuse? Even for newborns?") And for charity's sake (and for intellectual humility's sake,) I grant some greater accommodation and understanding to others (women in particular, in this case,) than I expect for myself. But that feels like one of those cracks big enough to drive the whole program through. I do not want to close it. But every time I hear another one of these omnipotent excuses brandished beyond all reason, that crack gets that much narrower.
More options
Context Copy link
I've started to notice a recurring pattern:
The first example that comes to mind is Harvey Weinstein. The second example, smaller-scale but closer to home, is the MeToo moment that Effective Altruism went through in late 2022, weeks after the FTX scandal broke. (It's not that Sam Bankman-Fried and the other FTX magnates were themselves accused of sexual impropriety, but rather other figures prominent in EA, who had previously served as indirect conduits to that juicy billion-dollar slush fund, but then that was no longer on the table.)
Skeptical eyebrows will immediately crook. "If Jane Doe was really raped at the frat house, why would she want to go back there for their Halloween party, much less be offended at not being invited?" - to which we can offer one of two explanations, one uncharitable towards her, one charitable:
Explanation A (uncharitable): There was no rape; Jane Doe is maliciously accusing them of rape as vastly disproportionate payback for being disinvited from Halloween. She should be laughed out of the room; nobody is entitled to a party invitation, after all, much less entitled to weaponize the justice system in the name of securing one.
Explanation B (charitable): There was in fact rape, but Jane Doe felt trapped because she was dealing with powerful men, men who could make or break her fortunes on a whim. Staying in their good graces was a matter of existential importance for her - it's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and you need high-status patronage just to survive. So after the rape, she put on a happy face and pretended to be excited about the Halloween party. But then when she was disinvited, she realized it had all been for nothing. If she was going to be socially ruined anyway, there was no reason to keep quiet any more. Finally the truth could come out, and justice could be done.
(Replace "Halloween" with "acting gigs" "FTX Futures grants" etc. as appropriate.)
But now the theory-of-mind challenge I'll pose is this: Can you put yourself in a headspace where A and B are literally the same scenario? Not just that the distinction rests on facts which are epistemically inaccessible, but where it is not even a meaningful question to ask which scenario we're in. (Superposition, not hidden variables.)
This is difficult for me, because my default background assumption is that everyone is acting freely, not under duress, and are therefore responsible for behaving morally and speaking truthfully. If a situation of coercion exists, such that someone is compelled into immorality/dishonesty, then this is an alarming abnormality that should be remedied, but once it is, we can all go back to being virtuous again.
I have come to realize that many people (especially women) live in a very different world.
Explanation C (how trauma actually works): Jane Doe experienced a traumatic event and in the immediate aftermath rationalized a narrative where the trauma did not occur because denial is normal response to trauma, only later working through her memories and accepting what happened.
I take it that’s why we should also try to recover repressed memories, it just takes time to work through traumatic events that might have never occurred!
This specious argument hews very close to the repressed-memory debacle and hosting it is discreditable given what we understand about how memories are formed and retrieved. It is an incredible indictment on therapy culture that it is able to wear science as a skinsuit while advancing such ludicrous ideas if you can with a straight face say that this is “how trauma actually works”.
Evaluating events later based on different mores and attitudes is different, but that is hardly what you are offering.
More options
Context Copy link
This explanation poses such incredibly irresolvable issues for how people interact that it leads to a very different society than the one we now live in, and in the "Islam is right about women" direction.
More options
Context Copy link
Is it even theoretically possible to falsify a claim like that? I am unaware of any other circumstances in which memory of an event gets better over time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I feel like female sexuality is just kind of like that for a lot of women. I've got a close female friend who is a serial fantasist about guys and tells me about it, and she essentially lives her life in a series of massive infatuations with a guy at a time for a couple months during which he's a god to her then inevitably something sours it/an ick appears then he's immediately off the cliff with her. She doesn't actually do anything to pursue these infatuations since she's a busy single mom, but I'm reminded of a period where she was essentially daily pining for her boss at the time to 50 Shades of Grey her then she fell out of lust with him since he sounded weird one time or something. Then he made one ill-chosen dirty joke in her presence a couple months later and she responded in full HR-mode.
If she had been actually propositioned during her earlier swooning period by him, she'd likely have entertained it and then a few months later would have looked back on it as borderline rape, assuming the relationship then soured. It's just how her mind works.
My friend is probably an extreme case, but I believe that a lot of female sexuality just works like that whilst men tend to be a lot more stable in their evaluation of women. Sure, they may filter a given woman from 'worthy of a long-term relationship/wife material' but they're generally less explosively hot and cold.
More options
Context Copy link
Explanation A is uncharitable to Jane Doe but charitable to the accused. Explanation B is charitable to Doe but uncharitable to the accused. Charity provides no answers here, only a political preference for one sex or the other does.
No. Rashomon is misleading; there is an objective truth and objective reality, even if inaccessible.
Correct; I just omitted "towards her" to avoid repeating it 3 extra times.
You can choose how you want to spend your time, but I think it's valuable to try and get inside people's heads, because the world is full of shitty people, and we need to figure out how to navigate around them.
Not to go too deep into it, but: Notice how both explanations consist almost entirely of ought-statements and not is-statements. If one is a thoroughgoing moral nihilist*, then the distinction between the two collapses.
*Not just a moral relativist, since a relativist could still say "There is no absolute moral truth, but the norm we have adopted in our society is...", whereas a nihilist would also deny the existence of "our society".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Another possibility (which doesn't seem to apply in the Cornell situation) is that the accuser might wait until other accusations have been made for fear of not being believed.
In any event, I think I'm with @dailydogma on this one. This person's desire to return to the fraternity house bears not only on her credibility but also on the severity of the crime she is alleging.
That's horseshit in #currentYear, and every woman over the age of 10 knows that.
And yes, I do give intentionality to not going to the authorities right away- you can't gather evidence 50 years after the fact and I do not for a second buy "it would be traumatizing to have another person touch my [pp]" (it's just hiding behind Privilege and reserving the ability to do this for later). You either want it prosecuted (and signs of assault will be present only at that time as well), or you don't.
The "bunch of angry women claim a crime was committed 50 years ex post facto" is exhibit A for why a reasonable statute of limitations, especially for matters involving a negotiation between two or more parties (sex being the oldest example of this) is a requirement for a well-regulated society.
(And yes, it's kind of obvious that the gender, for who stability is by nature for granted, seeks to undermine that for everyone else whenever they enjoy the privilege to do so. When men have that privilege, they tend to front-load excessive punishments for similar reasons, which makes sense considering that stability is what men are in charge of providing.)
Perhaps, but I was just trying to come up with charitable explanations for why an accuser might wait.
Agreed, a fair system strikes a balance between accusers and accused. The imposition of time limits, both formal and informal, recognizes that it's not fair for those accused to have to defend against stale allegations. And that stale accusations are far more likely to be exaggerated or false.
Removing these time limits is fundamentally an attempt to shift the balance in favor of accusers and against those accused. For obvious reasons.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is it established that she wanted to go to the party (and not e.g., the sorority requested the disinvitation preemptively even though she probably wouldn’t have gone anyway)? Not saying you’re wrong, I just haven’t followed this whole thing closely and don’t know what is established fact, what is reasonable inference, and what is speculation.
More options
Context Copy link
My gestalt in any story where there’s supposedly a non consensual event is to look carefully at the behavior of the accusers in the immediate aftermath of the event. If they’re not acting like something negative happened, then there’s a problem. The story likely is at best exaggerated and at worst fictional.
You’d think so but the standard feminist line is women are so brainwashed by Patriarchy it could be months, years or even decades before a woman could understand that she was raped.
It’s all unfalsifiable “heads I win, tails you lose.” Beliefs all the way down as far as I can tell.
I’ve always held it as a given that it’s someone’s civic duty to report a serious violent crime and by not reporting you’re skirting your duty, and are enabling criminals to continue to victimize others.
Apparently that’s a quaint attitude, and it’s offensive to even consider that in the context of rape, something generally considered one of the vile crimes there are.
Yeah, and the inherent fuzziness of this concept where there's always got to be a certain carve out for 'a person behaved inappropriately to me when I was a child and it took me years to frame it appropriately' which then gets leapt into by all forms of 'I was taken advantage of at 27 and only realized at 29 after we broke up'
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Neither A nor B actually flow from whether a 'rape' happened, I'd say. Both flow from the social humiliation, but A attributes that social humiliation to, I guess, the general social environment, whilst explanation B attributes it to the influence of these frat guys being powerful enough to threaten consequences irrespective of the general social environment.
Which is to say, Explanation B is exceptionally uncharitable to the men. Because it seems apparent that they disinvited her due to the possibility of social humiliation of various parties... not to induce social humiliation.
SO I can find both 'true' simultaneously: nobody was 'raped' but everyone realized that social consequences were impending and tried to situate themselves to minimize the damage... but they had leverage in the form of the Halloween party and she had leverage in the form of a rape accusation.
The whole thing about #metoo was the implication that the power imbalance itself is enough to convert a facially consensual encounter into rape, but when the imbalance is "immature frat dudes with local social clout" and not "literal Hollywood magnate with the ability to nuke ones' career path" I suspect the average onlooker isn't as sympathetic.
This is certainly true from an objective standpoint, but I think women are a lot more attuned to "local status" than global status, and men act accordingly. E.g. when we look at the typical "male cult leader who's banging all his female followers", it's easy for us on the outside to say "lmao, this guy isn't even attractive or high-status, he's just some random schlub, you can just walk away and nothing bad would happen to you." But what the cult leader has done is construct a tiny snowglobe world of which he is king, and this world is what the cult followers live and breathe every day. The idea that there is some broader context in which the cult and its leader are considered low-status is at best just an abstract concept that doesn't register emotionally, much like the abstract knowledge that there are starving children in some random African village.
Oh absolutely, the human brain with its dunbar's number limits is probably not thinking "oh but what if this becomes a national controversy?"
I'm just saying, the relative power imbalance here is pretty slim. If it was some homeless teen runaway that they had pulled in and dosed with drugs, the disparity would be broader and possible noteworthy.
But the combination of the similarity of ages, basically similar social standing, basically similar economic strata... any power differential was mostly in their minds if any.
So despite how the emotional experience might have been intense, an actress turning down Harvey Weinstein and having her career instantly and irrevocably nuked is certainly in a less tenable position than a sorority sister trying to, I dunno, either climb the status ladder or lock down a Frat guy as a partner and being forced to change schools.
More options
Context Copy link
Power and status are highly contextual, and I've found general attempts to rate "privilege" don't map well to the full gamut of situations.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Explanation B still implies the penalty for rape of this kind should be misdemeanor level. Objectively it shows that the tort of it is equal to the tort of being dis-invited to a Halloween party, because it is worth staying in friendly terms with Your Rapist so you can have the privilege of a college social life. As in yes they made her feel bad and she might have overlooked it, so she is not lying about feeling bad, but we can measure that she specifically felt a level of bad that being invited to a party would make up for. Making someone feel that level of bad should not be a Severe Felony Offense.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In today's fractured, "diverse", and feminist world where the only sense of morals come from whether or not consent was present, there is no widespread moral framework for judging actions. When something like this comes up, everyone knows something fishy was going on. But we can't "slut shame". Don't even suggest that a woman behaved improperly. The appeal naturally goes to the only remaining moral framework - consent, or lack thereof. The blame needs to be placed on the men entirely.
I don't think these men acted as morally upstanding members of our society. I want a society with fewer people behaving as they did. But what appetite do I see anywhere for sexual restraint? We all are free to pursue our most degenerate sexual impulses (as long as there's consent) and how dare you judge anyone.
This woman also is disgusting. But how dare you suggest a woman not behave as sexually free as her little girl boss soul desires?
Hence, rape. It must be rape. There's no other option available to our cultural lexicon.
There is a difference between disgust at private action and believing it should be illegal. I don't think we should have a national news story about an orgy. I do think we should have one about a gang rape.
I don't think this was a gang rape and so I don't think it should be a major news story. I do think their fellow college students were right to go "ew". If the girl is in a sorority, she should be kicked out. If I was in charge of a frat with dudes that did this, they'd be reprimanded or kicked out*, but I believe in freedom of association and am not part of their associations so its none of my business now.
*Yes we are going to have a double standard here, insomuch as she does more reputational harm to her potential sorority than the guys do to their frat. If guys in a frat are assumed to be gross and slutty, that will harm them in that people might refuse to date them or hang out with them. For a girl, its both of those things (shun the delta delta delta girls) but also possibly assume they are slutty. As a woman being part of a group considered more slutty can be uncomfortable or dangerous (I was once an American teenage girl who visited several southern European cities in the 90s, and those men were pushier because they perceived American girls as more likely to put out).
This is obviously an old controversy, I remember Emily Yoffe's excellent reporting on this in the mid 2010s. Colleges should not be investigating rape cases at all. If a crime has occurred defer to the people that are experts. In the short term the college can certainly try to help the girl (lockdown dorm access or allow her to move rooms) but not at the expense of assuming someone else is guilty of a crime. When someone IS convicted of that crime, thats when they can be expelled.
I think what I feel frustrating about this case is that legally this was investigated and she agreed she wasn't raped. That should have been the end of it. There are so many real things to get upset about, how is this national news.
I agree that it isn't the College's place to litigate this, but I'd also expect that Cornell University isn't circling the wagons for a bunch of random Fratbros in the 2020s and if anything I'd expect the university to punish for significantly greyer areas than would stick legally, here.
More options
Context Copy link
It's actually kind of a tough line to walk (I'll assume here, given that you were once a teenage girl, that you weren't in a frat). From a fratboy perspective, there are two liability issues: first, the reputational and potential legal damage of having the orgy in the first place. We'll bracket the legal, since what that should be is the dispute at hand - reputationally, if the orgy is socially understood as fully consensual, it's mixed but generally a net good for the frat's reputation, you'll make the other guys jealous and probably pique some girls' interest. Tough for the girl in question but that's how greek life gender dynamics work, if you're disgusted by weird sex stuff you're not going to make it past the hazing. Second, the damage of the messages sent in the group chat. If I was president, even if the girl in question loved the experience and came back for more (which happens, there are girls who pride themselves on going through as much of a given frat as they can), I'd be tanning the hide of whichever idiot sent stuff like "free pussy in room X". You're taking a totally negligent approach to party safety, an attitude to women (including sorority girls) which they will find repellent, gift-wrapping it for the salty geeds at the campus newspaper, and you're broadcasting it permanently to 57 people?! You're essentially handing a massive potential blackmail to anybody in that group. What if the frat needs to kick out a problem brother next semester and he shows you a screenshot of the messages? (Again, not hypothetical, something like this happened to a frat I knew - a brother did something extremely unpleasant to another, was kicked out, and aired out every offensive message in groupchats he had). What if some brother's an idiot and shows them to his friends to brag? What if one's dumb enough to show them to a girl to play pick-me? The only way you could get away with harshly punishing the guy who sent the messages is because they'd be equally embarrassing for him if revealed. Kids these days and their stupid phones...
Their risk management completely asleep at the wheel. Even having fully consensual ketamine fueled orgies in a house with letters on it is stupid, do that shit in an apartment. This is why like 50% of dues are for insurance.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Where “we” never included heterosexual white or white-adjacent men, though. Unbounded sexual freedom for her and xyr, but not for him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The disinvitation read to me like "Look, the last time you came to a party, you got so wasted you ended up doing ket and fucking seven guys, maybe this is not the best way for you to have fun". Then she got offended and ran off with "I was raped" to get her own back on them.
It did get out of control, but part of that was a consequence of "willingly got drunk and high and agreed to things that escalated".
Thé disinvite was at the request of her sorority, which was worried about their reputation. Sorority sisters are not supposed to do groupsex. It was probably also an attempt to cover the frat’s rear end.
Seems pretty obvious the interactions were going to be awkward when you get a bunch of people with various levels of affection for each other into a social setting after they've done a drug-fueled orgy together. And anyone else who knows about it is going to be watching to see if they decide to repeat the performance and sneak in themselves or drag their own SO away from them to make sure they don't get pulled in.
And then the looming likelihood of some attendee being like "YO KYLE IS THIS GIRL WHO SNORTED KEY OFF YOUR JUNK?" and triggering a scene.
As someone who hosted various parties at my house, WAY less raucous than a college frat, you always have to keep that calculation running in the back of your head "If X shows up, will they get offended if Y is also there, and if Y isn't there will X start talking about Y behind their back and because Z is friends with both of them do I have to do damage control if I disinvite one or both of them?"
So the sometimes easiest answer is to to disinvite the one you judge as the most likely source of problem and, if they're a reasonable person, have the apologetic discussion with them later. I didn't have to do that often (once, maybe?) but plenty of drama happens behind the scenes that I simply wasn't cued into and got informed of after the fact.
More options
Context Copy link
If true, that’s lowkey pretty funny: that Lucy’s sorority sisters couldn’t muster up the courage to thot-patrol her for overstepping the bounds of acceptable sororistute behavior, so they had to outsource being a meanie to the fraternity president.
Also funny is that in an alternate universe where Craig was allowed to attend the Halloween party, prance around in a slutty costume for a few hours before snorting some ketamine off cock and fucking and sucking some number of Chi Phi bros, we would have never heard of Lucy Craig, nor the Cornell 7, and Delta Delta Delta would have one less “Tri Delt? Who hasn’t” data point against them. Streisand Effect: Multiverse edition.
I read this without remembering that Craig was her surname, and thought, well, that probably would have caused a different kind of drama.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is, by far, the biggest problem with pop-feminism right now. We are living in a culture that has transformed rapidly. In a matter of two or three generations, our entire sexual and gender ethic has been revolutionized. There are still many vestiges of the old guard, including communities that maintain "old-school" sexual standards wholesale. The spectre of chivalry remains, and it's a difficult thing to part with. Women read stories about esteemed ladies and depraved sexcapades in equal measure. Women want both, and I don't blame them. It's hard to part with things.
The more sophisticated feminists have rectified this contradiction long ago - women and men ought to be socio-legally "equal", but they are not running identical scripts. The natural asymmetry of men and women in aggregate, both physiologically and throughout history, suggests that treating the parties with a hint of différance remains prudent. However, a message like that, with nuance, is quite challenging to transmit across the culture. When men hear feminist refrains, it's usually in the form of quick slogans, brief seminars, and the highly reductive: "men and women are equal, full stop." You could call this "naive feminism." In practice, this amounts to men treating women like they treat men. This can be functional in some contexts, but not in others, especially in the romantic/sexual realm, where the influences of past interpellation remain strong.
Case in point: imagine if the participants in this situation were all men. It might have still produced university attention, but it would have been nary a blip in the media landscape - just a drug-fueled gay orgy. Gay men are sexually forward, adventurous, and relatively unpretentious/unprecious about their bodies. However, there was a woman involved at Cornell. The frat brothers should have known better than to treat her like a man. Whether they like it or not, women's sexuality, for a myriad reasons, still has a precious quality to it that we have not culturally disposed of in its entirety. Rape or not, they took an extreme risk by indulging their depravity. I (flippantly) agree with the @georgioz below - the boys should be lashed in the street. That would be far more efficient than the circus we have right now, and probably satisfy most parties. ESH.
The unresolvable contradiction is that sociopolitical equality can't be built on biological inequality unless one explains away or minimizes those biological differences enough that the law doesn't have to actually distinguish between men and women as groups.
You can't have both men and women with equal social authority when society calls upon men to go forth and kill and/or die to protect the tribe, whilst the women are expected to bear the children to maintain the tribe. Literally unresolvable: send your women forth to fight, even alongside the men (which implies training them and equipping them for the task, a massive resource investment!), and you risk no children being born to maintain the tribe, the tribe dies, even if they do successfully fight off the invaders.
The law (formal or informal) must therefore say that only men (with perhaps narrow exceptions) are allowed to be warriors! And once the law recognizes at least that one distinction, all sorts of consequences inherently result as warriors will necessarily have a heightened prestige in that society (lest who would bother to join up?).
Were that the ONLY meaningful distinction (men fight and die, women live and birth life) we could probably keep things in balance but nature did a LOT more work on the distinct psychology and physiology of men and women than that.
Sure, but in this sense men have duty to protect the tribe. They will be conscripted and send off to war as we now see in Ukraine or Russia and as it happened many times last century during world wars and other conflicts. Do women have duty to marry and have children? In fact do they have any gender specific duty at all?
More options
Context Copy link
Right...? I'm not sure if we're disagreeing here, lol. That's basically a huge chunk of The Second Sex.
I suppose we differ in that I don't think it's an unresolvable contradiction. There is a technological component to feminism. The division of labor in a primitive, undeveloped economy cannot as easily support women's equality due to the vast amount of resources required to meditate the "biological functions" you identify, breeding, fighting, feeding, and so on. Luckily, in our society, male bodies do not necessarily fight (drones and guns do) and male bodies do not necessarily work (computers and robot arms do). There's nuance to be had, but largely, maleness as a biological necessity for certain social functions has become fungible. Thus, women can make choices that are counter to their historical roles. If it wasn't already clear, I believe this is an overall positive development for human liberty and self-actualization. At this point, the only non-fungible biological difference between men and women that retains its original importance is that of the womb, and transhumanists are seeking to "equalize" that eventually, as well.
This is absolutely not the case, often espoused by people who are far removed from physical realities of stuff. Yes, the final deathblow is dealt by a drone or a bullet, but there are people operating those drones and guns. Women have hard time even filling up a pistol magazine as it requires certain strength. Light infantry backpack can weight 50 to 80 pounds of weapon, ammunition and other equipment such as mortar shells or electronic equipment. Tank crew of 4 has to spend 8 manhours of maintenance for each hour of operation of the tank, they need to drag heavy equipment such as repairing tracks, help with refueling and loading ammunition etc. And that is for peacetime, during field operation they have to do it all without specialized equipment, sometimes with minimal or no sleep and under constant threat of ambush. One of the best strategies to defend against drones is to dig, which requires shovels and dedication to create tunnel network. There are still people who crawl into small spaces to remove debris from a clogged pipeline in order for things to work. Roofers in Arizona work at 100 degrees Fahrenheit / 38 degrees Celsius walking on 160/70 degrees roof to do their job. Women would literally die of heatstroke doing such a job.
And we are not even talking about other intangibles, such as men easily sliding into a hierarchical organization, following orders and spontaneously creating new hierarchies in case of change. Or how men are "interested in" crucial jobs as they innately draw satisfaction from such a thing. Imagine the latest story: an amateur astronomer discovered new exoplanet by analyzing raw data from previous experiments using Claude. What is the chance he is a man as opposed to a woman? Of course he was a man obsessed by perfecting some strange niche area of research. You may think of it as a stupidity, but the same goes for every endeavor - a man who proposes some improvement on the spot how to better dig into a frozen land, how to move supplies, how to use new AI technology to guide drones to hit Russian tanks etc.
Male bodies by themselves provide huge advantage in physical world. But male minds and social behavior is equally - if not more important in this manner.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah.
But the deeper I get into understanding technology, the more I think technology is inherently a result of male specialization that most women can't comprehend on the same level.
Remember that infamous water glass test. If (most) women don't have an intuition for how gravity and fluid dynamics work on a basic level... how could they invent, e.g., sailing tech?
Men produce new tech, maintain old tech, and, ultimately, make that tech comprehensible enough that women can use it in their everyday lives. The whole edifice requires male psychology to operate.
So you can say "men don't fight, drones do." But men build the drones, maintain the drones, mostly fly the drones, and innovate new drone tech and tactics.
And, who fights if the tech fails? If we have mech suits that bring combat capacity about equal, we're still reverting back to sticks and stones if the mech suits break down.
I think the triumph of technology in the 20th-21st century is making war and combat less central to the average person's life. The warrior is less critical now than before, so fewer people will specialize as warriors, and we can elevate other classes up.
It did not erase the distinctions that make men better warriors, and, critically, has not erased the core, basic problem that makes warriors necessary, as Ukraine has discovered.
Off-topic, but what the fuck? How did they get into college? I thought the catch was you had to grok that the tilted cylinder has less volume at the bottom and draw the new water level slightly higher than the old one, but fifteen percent of men didn't draw a horizontal line?!
Oh, that goes into my OTHER rant, the one about 1993:
That's the year it was made an explicit policy to get more women in college and they made it easier to get loans to get in.
Not just them, how did these men who don't understand how water works get admitted?
I strongly suspect a lot of underqualified MALES also started attending college after that 1993 policy change.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, technological developments will not de facto equalize sex distributions among all careers. As you say, men are likely to remain the predominant sex working in drone technology, for example, due to many psychosocial factors. However, the fact that particular women are now allowed to work in aerospace engineering and are recognized as being capable of it, even if you believe the median woman is too female-brained for the field, is a tremendous advance.
If we are living in a society where tech fails, we will obviously re-organize how society is run. Thankfully, we are not in that world, and our women do not need to live doomed, constrained lives.
As someone with high risk aversion, I think it behooves us not to build a society that depends heavily on female labor when we know full well that this isn't sustainable without the relatively fragile technological base we've built up.
The time of relative peace and prosperity we have known for the past 80 years is not a historical norm, and could revert without much notice (with the caveat of AGI making this impossible to predict).
The society that optimized towards giving women full parity with men will find it much, much harder to adapt to such a reversion than one that kept the basic gender role ideals in place.
If society reverts back '100 years' then we don't have to re-establish slavery or anything, but we better have a sufficiently large labor pool (and high birthrate) to keep from falling back much further.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Here is the circle that cannot be squared regarding all of the talk about agency and consent: If a woman drinks a bunch of alcohol, does ketamine, and then gets behind the wheel of a car, she is fully responsible for anything that happens. If the same woman participates in an orgie, she is not. Clearly something here doesn't add up.
Most of these "newsworthy" incidents are just scissor statements with a recurring theme. On one side are people that believe in some sort of objective legal framework/set of ethics that supports one party. On the other side there is a group of people who empathize with the counter-party because of a media narrative. This misaligns the conversation in such a way that both sides can only yell past each other, and no compromise position can be reached. You just have to keep yelling the loudest until the next scissor statement pops up. This has been the dominant form of civil discourse in the social media age.
While this is getting somewhat predictable and boring at this stage, I am genuinely curious about what comes next. No form of media has ever existed for an extended period of time without a cartel stepping in and imposing some form of order. My inclination is that at some point, someone will figure out how to divide the emotionally charged narrative people into such small and fractured groups that they no longer have any power. Or maybe just find some truly pointless windmill for them to tilt at. Whatever the solution is, it can't come soon enough.
It's very simple. The law is not about logic or justice. It's about women's tears. Drunk driving laws exists in the US because the mothers against it cried when some little girls got ran over by drunk men. Drunk driving makes women cry, so you have to go to jail for it. Drunk orgies also make women cry. But only at the male actions. So only the men have to go to jail in that case, because only the men made the women upset. In the united states, justice is prison time for the crime of making women feel bad. You can murder your own children, but if the women aren't upset about it, doesn't matter. In the united states you don't get convicted for it then.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Interestingly, I once pointed out that the social function of Sororities is PROBABLY to select for women who can be DISCREET about their promiscuity. quoth me:
And clearly, Jane Doe in this instance failed that test HARD. Which, yes, you can reframe it thusly:
Feminism and the sexual revolution have done away with any sort of 'consequences' for having sex. That was the point!
You bang, and any further connection is completely optional. If you use protection, then you won't have to worry about a pregnancy or STD popping up, and nobody needs to talk about sticky stuff like 'marriage' and 'long term relationship', just keep things fun!
But uh oh that's not quite how human endocrine systems work, and the social systems we've built on top of THAT are still running on that basic hardware: don't make people feel icky, don't besmirch other people's status, don't break too many taboos at once (unless you're high status enough to do so), and people will rank you in their head accordingly.
One year back I had made the point about how schizophrenic our clashing taboos around sex and nudity are now:
And here you get the worst instantiation of this paradox. The males got to exploit the 'norm' (but not really) that a promiscuous woman is not shameful to get some instant gratification here and the female, despite not doing anything (morally or legally) 'wrong' is still condemned for it, but the social condemnation is not subject to due process and does not care what her 'defense' is ("I'm a strong empowered woman who will not be shamed!") But we still do have one major, universally agreed norm which has legal teeth: Nonconsensual sex is very bad, and those who force themselves on women MUST be ejected from the social sphere. So its not only the ultimate sanction, its the only one that helps a humiliated woman regain social approval. Its literally the only consistent norm we have left, and we even choose to blur the lines around THAT. Wait, we also have strong norms around relations with kids, but I am NOT touching that right now.
And thus...
SOME days I wish I wasn't autistic enough to expect that social norms should be explicitly stated and followed, and that the actual law should at least try to conform to the actual social norms we follow, not just the kind of vaguely stated 'expectations' we have for people's behavior, that we know privately (or maybe not) are impossible for the average person to conform with. It'd be easier to just go with the flow if I didn't notice the contradiction.
But the on others, I look at all the snafus that normies get themselves into by following base instincts while running with the naive assumption that social rules don't matter, even though their own core psychology, at the end of the day, cares ONLY for social rules and maintaining status by not violating them.
Grumble grumble traditional rules are proven safeguards and all that.
And I just thank the lord that I'm just autistic enough to notice those areas where the stated rules conflict with the subtext/unstated rules conflict with the inherent human drives and desires and tactically avoid treading in those areas without sufficient protection. If it takes level 10 status awareness and level 9 charisma to sail those stormy social seas successfully I'd just as soon be a submarine, illegible to most until I CHOOSE to surface.
I'm dead certain that 95% of the time, everyone involved in the Ketamine/cocaine-fueled college gangbang 'gets away' with whatever they're doing. Fine, we just never hear about it after the fact because the players are more discrete or the Frat/Sorority are better at damage control. But I'm also certain that these people live lives much more filled with drama and dysfunction than is strictly necessary, and they'd be much more fulfilled living under the very basic, traditional rules that dominated society up until 5 (historical) minutes ago.
Take it up with the hippies.
More options
Context Copy link
I'll admit, that I hope the full text of her actual statements to police get released, since right now we only have the DA's summaries and snippets from newspapers that have apparently obtained the full text. I'm particularly curious about the context of this quote:
Considering that the DA determined that her statement didn't merit criminal charges initially, and he doesn't mention hitting at any point in his summary of her words, it makes me wonder if it was just rough sex / BDSM stuff, or if the DA has misrepresented her statement and things were more rough-and-tumble than the mostly consensual drug-fueled triple threesome narrative in his summary?
It is interesting to me that all the media outlets claim to have the Title IX case file, which I assume they got from Jane Doe --- leaking it from the university would, AFAIK, be a felony under FERPA. I'm fairly confident she has, or could get, a copy of the police statement and full report. I haven't seen the media claim to have seen those. My best guess is that what we're seeing is heavily spun in the interest of getting a settlement, but I have no doubt there will be plenty of collateral damage.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would like to see some sort of parody trailer sketch for an imaginary film about a woman who can't get laid at college, because every single guy she hits on is too respectful of her feminine lack of agency.
And so on. Even when she's stone sober, the guys just apologize endlessly for their male privilege and refuse to do anything to her without a fresh consent form for each additional finger. Depending on how broad or focused you want to be, you could also include every man she does talk to getting escorted away by security because another woman saw her being attention-assaulted and called the hotline.
This all culminates in her drugging a guy with ketamine and mounting him, only for campus police to arrive in full tac gear and arrest him for rape.
More options
Context Copy link
Your premise is simply wrong.
Based on the multiple text messages between Jane Hoe and Male #1 - which continued until just after her disinvitation from the halloween party - this does not appear to be the case. Male #1 apologized for how things went down, Jane Hoe said it was crazy but fine, and suggested repeating the experience under more controlled circumstances.
Note also that according to her statement, Male #1 was unconscious when Male #3 knocked on the door to his own room. She let him in and then they started making out. Again: male #1 was unconscious after Jane Hoe (285lb deadlift) fucked him into submission while he was high on ketamine.
Later on Male #1 and Jane Hoe commiserated about how people were criticizing both of them over their private sexual behavior.
The position of the men she had sex with (or at least male #1) on the Halloween party is that "chi phi is your house and you are welcome here".
This does not sound like Male #1 - her primary interest - dropping her. This all sounds like two (three?) people who find each other hot starting a relationship that might involve group sex. As for males #3-7, Jane Hoe explicitly dropped them. In her texts she suggested repeating the experience "but like leave out the extra 5 billion men and ketamine".
The fraternity president - who did not have sex with her - disinvited her. He is likely also the male who "shut down whatever the fuck this is" and was probably acting under pressure from the sorority queen bee regarding the disinvitation.
So the actual situation is not what you describe at all. It's Male #1 treating Jane Doe kindly, but third parties calling her a slut and harming her social life.
Is there a neutral source giving an overview? News articles only summarize it and social media is piece by piece.
Just out of sequence screenshots, nothing complete.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Plus one can just reject the premise: Even if they dropped Lucy Craig like a hot potato afterward, so what. Male #1 or the other men don’t owe her social or emotional alimony as a form of perpetual debt simply because she whored out for them one night.
If women are adult and Empowered enough to have the freedom to hoe, they can put on their Big Girl pants and deal with the social or emotional consequences that may come with the hoetry, such as *gasp* getting uninvited from a halloween party. How dare that fraternity president disrespect her Wonderfulness!
More options
Context Copy link
Even if it's not entirely legally true, it's generally considered in frats that the president is the face of the frat both in dealing with the university and the legal system, and shoulders a lot of personal liability in his role. The job of the president is to be the most paranoid and stressed-out guy in the house, not an easy job. I've known many cases where everyone's chill with something and the president has to step in and shut it down (and, very occasionally, like this, it backfires horribly).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've talked before about how a lot of rape-culture controversies arise because under a consent-only view of rape, and a criminal legal standard of intent mens rea, you can run into the scenario in which there is a rape, but there is no rapist. A woman feels that she did not give consent, or that she was coerced into giving consent; but the man feels that she did give consent, had no intent whatsoever to have sex with her against her consent or to coerce her consent, and would have stopped within a reasonable interval after consent was withdrawn. This is a common disjuncture.
Cornell, in the spirit of an elite research university, has developed the inverse: rapists, but no rape.
This case feels quite opposite of most. Speaking as one of our resident perverts: I both find the actions of the men disgusting, and it sure feels like some of them were at best neutral on the question of consent; and I think the girl pretty much consented tow hat happened. At any rate, while I understand the idea that consenting to a threesome or even a foursome does not constitute consent to the other three or four comers; it does feel like once you've entered the group sex with relative strangers arena, an additional man or two slipping in is at worst a contact foul rather than a felony. The mindset of the man who wants "free pussy" without caring much for consent is blameworthy, but I have trouble seeing "I had sex with 5 men rather than 4" or "I did a bit more ket than I had planned to" as life ruiningly traumatic rather than mildly unfortunate.
It's tough to imagine that she would find the incident particularly noteworthy at all, but for the propaganda about trauma that she had been fed by the culture.
Yes but this is true for a lot, maybe most, of famous cases over the last 10 years. The standard seems to be that a mild tort against a woman warrants decades in prison. For example if you read the Ghislaine Maxwell trial transcripts the accusations are about consensual sex/massages in exchange for a lot of rewards. The same with Harvey Weinstein. Those women were rewarded for their sex while this one was spurned so surely the former must have suffered less trauma than this one.
Idk, I'm pretty comfortable saying that pimping is a crime, aggravated by those pimped being even mildly underaged, regardless of the degree of "trauma" we think was suffered by the whore in question.
This is why in debates like those around Deshaun Watson, I keep trying to bring back the anachronism "whoremonger" as an insult specific to a man. The best you can say is that they were engaged in prostitution, even if you leave the consent questions alone it's still not a good thing for a man to be doing.
He was not a pimp, read Michael Tracey. The only semblance of prostitution that occurred was him buying massages from female procurers. He did not pimp girls out to other men.
I would rather give a massage for $300 than be gang banged on ketamine in exchange for a rejection from a party I want to go to. Come on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That is because the consent based criteria such as FRIES is absolutely stupid and make rapists out of people who would not be such under any rational standard. Whenever your wife wakes you up with her hand on your dick, she technically raped you. Whenever you have glass of wine during dinner with your GF and then hop on it, you are raping each other. Under this definition millions of people commit rape every single day.
I am not sure what people want. We have a society where Aella can write succesful blogpost about birthday gangbang with detailed flowchart of how many men did what to herself and fluffers she hired. And we pretend that not only is that a normal thing, but she and Scott Alexander and rest of their depraved butt magic sex cult then promptly rage against "conservatives" and prudes who are disgusted by such practices, which I think includes majority of the population.
We live in this crazy world where people have "rights" do do such depravities, which in practice means that you actually have duty to defend such a behavior. And yet somehow you are supposed to be selectively upset based on some technicality. Imagine that Aella was in some manic episode, she was given some drugs beforehand and in fact those dozens of men she invited actually raped her. Or even vice versa - that any of those men had some drink before and thus did not have full capacity to withdraw consent and were raped by Aella or whatever. In fact I am absolutely sure that something like that happened in practice, that is the way this depraved game is played. The same goes with porn which is at the same time protected by 1st amendment, widely consumed and yet from time to time we have some story about how this whole industry is one huge meatgrinder of souls where all participants numb their senses with copious amount of drugs, psychiatric medication and alcohol. So again, at the same time you should be on the side of Larry Flynt against People, and also at the same time you should be outraged on command whenever some sob story comes from a porn actress. It is just stupid and unworkable position.
In the end I don't care. If I was absolute monarch, I would line everybody involved in that Cornell shit including Jane Doe on local plaza and gave them punishment of 30 lashes as a form of justice. I would also fine each of them $50k for inflicting this stupid shit on unsuspecting public, who all collectively lost uncounted quintillions of brain cells by being forced to witness all that stupidity. Case closed.
Power. The power to destroy one's enemies with the approval of social consensus.
To many people (perhaps sociopaths) the benefit of rules is that they create rule-breakers. They give you the opportunity to destroy your rival, not with crude and blunt open aggression that would make you a horrid bully, but by catching them in the breaking of some rule. You blow your whistle: they broke a rule! They're out! They lose! You win! They get reduced to a stain on the floor - not through any agency of yours, of course, but by the inexorable workings of absolute justice. Such a hero you are!
This is a form that feminine aggression often takes. See, for example, the whole Last Ditch lesbian bar implosion: witness how the most fragile and vulnerable people in the world moved with such strength and speed and rage to spear each other to the wall as having broken some rule. See how the romance-novel subreddits scarcely pass a day without engaging in a purge or cancellation against somebody or other. (Is there something going on now? Oh!)
There are, of course, chumps like me think that e.g. traffic laws are supposed to facilitate safe driving rather than generate revenue. But that's often not how things really work.
Sure, that is one way to look at it, although I would not say it is just female mode of power. This is a classic techne of power: create byzantine rules and then apply them selectively whenever you want to arbitrarily punish somebody. There is the classic quote by Lavrentiy Beria, the chief of Joseph Stalin's NKVD: "Show me the man, and I'll find you the crime."
For sure, for sure. I took care to phrase things such that "disingenuous rule-enforcement" and "feminine aggression" are neither subsets nor synonyms of the other. (Likewise, I do not say "women" as the ones for it and "men" as the ones against it, but "sociopaths" and "suckers," which also are definitely not the same sets.)
Still, I would say that feminine aggression takes this form more often than masculine aggression does. One could say that that's because "brute physical force" is less on the table for women than for men, and so they make greater relative use of what's left, but I still don't think that's all there is to it.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You know, this is an interesting take, because if your desired end state is that everyone involved is punished horribly and made an example of, you seem the most likely of anyone involved to get your wish. The boys have been plastered everywhere, in a way that should give future fraternity men pause before engaging in this kind of thing. Jane Doe may have been doxxed already, she surely will be by the time this has run its course. If she chooses, she may be able to scratch some kind of positive living out of it as a professional rape victim, but this is going to end up the defining event of her life, in a way that will give future women pause before engaging in this kind of thing. All 8, or however many of them there are exactly, all of their lives have been irreparably altered negatively by this event. This will haunt them on the internet for the rest of their existence, it's probably not even possible to disappear as one used to and run away to the great north woods where no one knows your past.
Don't forget the Marine unlucky enough to have the same name as one of the 7 and his mother whose address was incorrectly listed in the docket.
I feel bad for Jane Doe, but those two didn't even do anything!
Why, particularly?
She is the one who made the affirmative choice to make this her whole personality, rather than quietly transfer to a state school where no one knew her and reconstruct her life. Even assuming that she did experience a traumatic sense of violation after the fact, I still can't get my head around just how awful her behavior after the fact has been.
She has given multiple versions of the events, and most of the citations here are to the least favorable of those. The DA's summary is probably technically correct, but I doubt it's the most flattering version of the original tale. The more recent version is viscerally unpleasant and I can imagine she feels today like it was exploitative, at least in hindsight. I'm not sure advertising her to the whole fraternity without her knowledge wasn't.
It seems quite possible to me she was sold a "modern, libertine, anything-consensual-goes sexuality" by the culture, only to run headlong into "lol, but not actually" in how the rest of campus reacted. It's unclear how she went to all the trouble of making a victim statement to the police without seemingly including the facts to make it a crime. I am really confused by that one, actually: is reading comprehension and general knowledge that bad among Ivy League undergraduates and police departments?
But it seems to me now she's been taken for a ride by the lawyers, and promised financial compensation, criminal charges, and
fameanonymity by her lawyers with this highly-public strategy, who I suspect know deep down she'd be lucky to get at most one. I don't see anyone but the lawyers winning this even if she does settle with the university. Is settlement even an option with the other parties? The facts, even only her accounts, don't seem friendly at trial (not a lawyer, interested in opinions), and there doesn't seem a case for reputational recovery worth a settlement for the guys even if they had money.She explicitly contradicts the facts that would have to be true to make this a crime. She is now doing something called lying, by changing her story to something else.
The lipstick feminist counterargument I’ve seen is that they claim abuse victims often don’t realize they’ve been abused, or are in denial of it, so Lucy’s initial statements reinforcing consensuality don’t count.
So it appears #BelieveWomen is applied selectively and the mental constitution of women is infallible one moment and fragile the next.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, it's a weird case. All of the guys were trying to get as far as they can with her and initiate making out and groping, but generally respected when she said no, backed away, or swatted their hands away.
If the DA's summary of her statement is accurate, then for the most part it seems like she verbally consented to a lot of it, and somatically consented to basically everything else. If anything, the part that comes off as most scummy is the final threesome. Males 3, 5 and 6 seem to have already been trying to wind things down, and then Males 1 and 4 usher her to a different room, convince her to do more ketamine and have the final threesome of the night before she taps out. It definitely reads like Male 1 caring more about his ego than her well-being, even if he was also high on ketamine and probably drunk as well.
Some time, as an experiment, try to dirty talk with a partner about great sexual experiences you had. It's like Rashomon, she's going to remember it completely differently than you do. Not necessarily in terms of "consent" or whether something was good, but in terms of what happened, in what order, who initiated what. Eyewitness accounts are unreliable at the best of times, when trying to minutely reconstruct the play-by-play of a drunk orgy from eight different sources is practically useless.
Hence why filming everything in high definition from five different angles is a simple expedient to prevent issues arising due to poor recollection later, but the rules around when its appropriate to film, and especially keep or publish the records of the encounter are extra convoluted.
IIRC NY is a one-party consent state for audio recording. Such a recording showing up here might be the biggest surprise evidence since Kavanaugh writing down all his social interactions starting in his teens.
More options
Context Copy link
Oh man we're on our way to one of my favorite college urban myths: the friend of a friend cocksman (often a lawyer or law student) who required a written or filmed consent contract prior to hookups.
One of the basic precautions I've taken is having a very obvious camera that overlooks my living room (which, upon request, I will unplug) that can at least show that I didn't drag her through the door and carry her off to the bedroom kicking and screaming and that she had adequate opportunity to leave.
Hidden cameras can save you in a pinch but carry their own reputational risk if she finds them. "Oh the creepy perv who films women without their knowledge." Mine has a little light on it and an prominent cable running down to the power supply and isn't shaped like anything but an obvious little camera.
Its also useful for watching my dog when I'm away.
I've split the difference. If she noticed the camera and tells me to unplug it, I will do so happily because now she's well aware that I've taken that precaution, at least, and she can of course wonder if I've taken other precautions. There are no such cameras in the bedroom, bathroom, or elsewhere.
I feel like that might more be the old "move" of putting an slr with a tripod in your dorm, allowing the easy transition when you bring her back to a "photoshoot" which no drunk girl can resist。
Seems outdated given the quality of cell phone cameras these days.
I dunno, I'm just extremely well prepared to avoid and/or combat any false rape accusations. Law Degree, experience with criminal defense, and a psych degree, so I've got a comprehensive legal, philosophical, and psychological understanding of 'consent.' I have experience handling domestic violence matters and I've seen the 'failure' modes that result when it comes down to only he-said, she-said and circumstantial evidence.
Likewise, I teach self defense, including to women. If I am a closeted rapist, I'm working somewhat against my own interest by teaching women how to fend off attackers.
And being very clear and specific in my text communications to make sure anyone reading it later (like a Judge or Jury) isn't going to interpret it the worst possible way. i.e., never put something like "Free pussy in room 205" in text, because that could end up in a court record later.
And I have on a couple occasions over the years turned down liaisons with seemingly willing women because they either struck me as the type who could flip and make such accusations on a whim, or I was not sufficiently in control of the circumstances that an accusation would be tougher to rebut. So much of it just comes down to "don't take a woman somewhere private unless you've vetted her." I'd much rather risk a public indecency charge because I got too handsy with her around witnesses than a sexual assault charge because I got handsy in private, all else equal. Both can get you put on the sex offender list, but the former is, funny enough, harder to prove since pleading the fifth can actually help you there.
That's the judgment call most guys aren't prepared to make because they don't know what to look for until AFTER it happens.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
She treated herself like a piece of meat. They met here where she was at.
Why would anyone have an interest in her? Why do they have a responsibility to have an interest in her? Demanding emotion and aftercare from a one night stand is psychopathic behaviour.
A good move if you don't want your party to degenerate into a gangbang, apparently.
Oh yeah she was doing charity work, getting absolutely nothing out of the situation.
Listen. Sluts are fast food. They're not good for you, but sometimes you just want a greasy burger and to hate yourself a little bit afterwards. But nobody is making the memories of their life at McDonalds, and nobody is getting emotionally attached to a Big Mac. Even the most hardcore of instagram girlies don't photo their nuggies before they messily devour them.
The partners that are worth being cared about are artisan kitchen dining, and sometimes you get Steamed Hams'd and served a Big Mac in what looks like a fine dining establishment. That sucks. But nobody ever unexpectedly gets a gourmet meal in a McDonalds.
Nobody wants a slut as a girlfriend, not really. Things have value because of their scarcity. If you get the girl that literally anyone can get with, that says nothing about you as a person, that assigns you no value. If you're accepted by the pickiest pillow princess, if she relents just for you, that means something.
But she’s not supposed to be a slut, thats what started this- was the Greek life honchos shutting it down because she was doing bad, so she started making rape accusations. This is a social role/status violation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A lot of words to say that it is men's responsibility to police both their own and female sexuality, which they are banned by law, custom and vicious political organizing from having any capacity for. Men are agents, women objects. Even in deep, deep blue Cornell, even in college with a supermajority of non-straight-men, even in the most liberal enclaves in the most liberal states in the union.
So must we all as men control our evolutionary imperative at all times and even in the face of aggressive female sexuality. Because they will never, ever take responsibility for their choices, and society will never, ever force them to.
My response would be that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. Equality has two edges. If I grant your premise, then women must be stripped of the vote and all public responsibilities, removed from most workplaces, monitored by trusted relatives, etc. etc. Freedom means nothing if not the right to make the wrong choice. If women are incapable of this in a legal manner, then they can have the full panoply of negative human rights, but none of the citizenship privileges of a free person in a democratic society.
So whaddaya think? Create an actual patriarchy from scratch, or just accept that the young lady made a poor choice that affected her reputationally? And none of it was the fault of evil dudes, who seem to have acted with puritanical exactness the consent rituals of the modern state religion.
Huh...
followed by something that is not the thesis here? I really tried, man, there's a whole section at the end. I'm sorry, I like your stuff generally, but this ain't it. I can only assume that you looked at the words and read something that was already in your mind and which was bothering you deeply. I hope you can find solace with that.
To be brief:
I assume this means "the men should not have gangbanged her." Personally, I'm generally against gangbangs, but on the understanding that 7 out of 8 are all in favor, here's the amended version: "the men should have understood that there were expectations placed on them above and beyond bringing penis to the gangbang." As far as I can understand it, and I'm not psychic here, the expectation was that she would be invited to future parties.
My point here is that, from the female perspective, it was the men who were not taking responsibility for their choices, and that failing to understand that perspective is what makes the problem intractable. (Yes, the most unfortunate duty placed upon men is that of reading women's minds. I don't like it either, but I have it on good authority that God had a plan for this.)
Oh, I accept she made a poor choice. Quoting myself:
But the missing part of the story is that the men made bad choices, specifically to have serial threesomes with a crazy slut and then try to totally disavow her after the fact. These bad choices are NOT appropriately punished by a rape conviction, or even a rape accusation. This is because, assuming her first account to be true, the men did not rape her. But they were bad choices, and the men at least deserved reputational harm for these choices. (I'd suggest the appropriate level of harm would be something like "you banged a fat chick" plus "you sucked your bro's dick when drunk" put together.) The fact that they did not appear to be suffering such reputational harm is what I understand is making a lot of women so angry.
This has never been the duty and it is utterly impossible and thus unreasonable.
In the past there were explicit rules where men were allowed to have sex with women (and vice versa), and it didn't involve mindreading, but marriage. The new messaging to men is that they must have consent. These men are now also being persecuted based on the accusation that they didn't ask for consent, not for a failure to mindread, even if the hidden motives may be different.
But it is simply not workable to demand that men do the impossible, or to tell men to do a thing and when they actually do that, persecute them for it.
More options
Context Copy link
The men who had sex with her did not totally disavow her. She remained in contact with Male #1 on friendly terms up until Halloween. Male #1 said "chi phi is your house" as far as having her attend the Halloween party. Do you have any evidence that Male #1 "dropped her" or treated her with anything besides kindness + romantic/friend-with-benefits interest?
(He was not even conscious when males #3-7 entered the room, if my reading of Jane Hoe's narrative is correct.)
A man (frat president) who did not have sex with her disinvited her and her sorority sisters called her a slut.
More options
Context Copy link
No reputational harm from being suspended and/or expelled, publicly named as a rapist in your school's newspaper, sued, and hounded on social media for years now? No, they want some more specific sort of reputational harm? Or, rather, you do.
Because men as a whole do not feel revulsion about guys who have consensual kinky sex with attractive coeds? I don't see a reasonable way of making that happen from our current state church sexual morality. Maybe not from any system.
More options
Context Copy link
The responsibility to do...what? Other commenters here have pointed out that the disinvitation to the Halloween party obviously seems to originate from the sorority queen bee. Were they responsible to defy her in this?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
...Hold up.
But what else is needed if both parties consent? Keeping it quiet? Right, after all dumb young men never brag about sexual conquests. Commitment? How do you imagine commitment in a gangbang?
You even acknowledge this in a way:
I would shift the focus here from the (sfw)corrupting power of cock to the incentives behind behavior, which you acknowledge for the woman but fail to apply to the men. The only person she can get away with after a gangbang is "crazy slut", but - extending this logic - what kind of person can you get away with being as a male participant? A healthy "aftermath" of sex is normally some measure of commitment to the woman, but can you imagine doing the "responsible" thing here, committing, to however small extent, to a woman you and your buddies have liberally taken turns on? Defending the honor of the nice, sweet girl who made a mistake, at the direct cost to your own status? Can you in your heart of hearts see such a man in this case as anything else but a mark, who's chosen to pay an upkeep everyone else has handily refused? Can the woman? Is the shadow of the gangbang not going to influence every joke and conversation (both with the woman and with the buddies) for years after? Remember we're talking about meatheaded fratboys here, sophisticated high-decouplers they ain't, stupid monkey neuron-activation shit absolutely can and does rule the status dynamics among those.
It would seem to me that the only winning move for a man here (insofar as the obviously superior "not to play" is not anymore an option) to preserve his status is to put on his best yes_chad.jpg face, mentally write the woman off, and proceed with business as usual. The cad-ness of the fuckboys here is largely in the gall of the initial offer (to which the woman has apparently consented); their behavior afterwards (as is hers) is entirely the result of incentives. A gangbang pretty obviously precludes any possibility of "healthy" commitment; if the woman was misled by
yaoithe culture to expect otherwise, I extend my sincere condolences, but shrug play stupid games, win stupid prizes.Uh... turn? I thought that "someone who sleeps around" is basically the definition of "slut". Sleeping around requires having sex, and sex is a 2 (uh, 2+) players game. Bit of a chicken-egg problem, but once again I don't think the almighty power of cock is the sole answer here.
I mean... why not? Does it have to be more complicated than that? My experience with horny university-age women is that they are, well, horny, and frequently think/talk about sex and sex-adjacent things even if
we assume female hypoagencythey're sane enough to not brazenly act on it (same as university-age men, incidentally!). One girl I knew pretty well confided to me that on her graduation party, she stumbled on the timeless Prom Classic (i.e two coeds having sex in a toilet stall) and her immediate gut reaction was along the lines of "I wish that was me...?" even as she hastily shut the door, bolted in inexplicable embarrassment, and refrained from having impulsive sexual relations that night. This is the Motte aka galaxy-brain central, so I genuinely don't mean to disparage you for positing that ackchyually the real issue is traditions and society-wide troubles three OoMs removed from the particular happening and something something incentives (hell, I literally just did the latter), but at the same time I really don't think we have to dig very deep here.Sure, this is something I probably should explicate a little.
If you're having casual sex with a woman, your obligations are pretty simple:
This is what makes the sex safe for the woman, especially 3, which is what I wanted to highlight most of all. I'm pretty dubious that 1 and 2 were followed (even if she got home safe, was it because the men cared to make it so?), 4 was DEFINITELY not followed (she felt disrespected from the Halloween party), and I guess 5 was technically followed, but 3 is where things seem to have gone very wrong.
This is what I meant by her getting "turned into" a crazy slut. There are a lot of women out there who have wild sex - but many of them are not "crazy sluts." They keep the details suitably private, or they recast the events in some appropriate manner to get a better image for themselves. It's a branding issue, and it's the most severe concrete harm done to her.
Obviously I personally think that commitment is generally a better mode for sex, and is the terminal goal there. But I understand that this, well, takes some working up to. Young people screw around. But there's a right and wrong way to screw around, and this has obligations on both parties. (There are obligations for the woman too, and one of them is that you don't hurl rape charges if you get upset. But I don't think that needs such a deep explanation.) What I suspect is going on here is a deeper dissatisfaction among women, that men corporately aren't meeting their obligations around sex. For this gangbang, the obligation was preserving the lady's modesty, but in other cases it IS in fact about commitment. This is why I'm saying that "consent" is insufficient - not for rape, which is a VERY specific and VERY severe kind of harm which is a matter of public i.e. state interest, but for meeting your gendered obligations around sex. Failing to meet your gendered obligations around sex is not a crime, but it's a reason to get socially sidelined. Think deadbeat dad, or a girlfriend who goes clubbing with her girlfriends (even if she doesn't screw anyone, pretty goddamn inappropriate).
Finally, small note:
I suspect she was screwing around at least in part so that she would be a "cool girl" or a "fun girl" who would get invited to more parties. Obviously she's an idiot and an out of control nut and was totally wrong about all of this, but it helps explain some of the story and especially her strong negative reaction. If all she wanted out of this was ketamine and cock, why would she be so upset after? She got those in great quantity.
She's not totally wrong. Based on shared texts, male #1 invited her to the halloween party and seemed romantically interested in her as well as concerned about her general well being.
On point (3), I'm not sure how you can keep a 7 person gangbang in a frat house a secret, particularly when she also told her friends about it. But at least based on texts, Male #1 didn't talk about.
Her primary romantic interest seemed to do all the things you suggest. Unrelated people who never had sex with her called her a slut and disinvited her from parties.
Do we know which of the numbered parties sent the Snapchat message?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Part of being modest is not doing gang bangs. Stated differently, the boys failed to help her lie that she was modest despite clearly being immodest.
This is one of the more interesting comments because it points to something real from the past; the ethical treatment of sluts.
(Minor Peaky Blinders spoilers below)
In Peaky Blinders, one of the later seasons, Tommy Shelby ends up marrying a literal whore. Her name is Lizzie. Everyone knows Lizzie is a whore. I think there's some subplot about one of the other Peaky Blinder guys falling in love with her before Tommy. I can't remember (I started to lost interest in that series pretty early on).
One of the reoccurring tropes is that nobody is every allowed to call Lizzie out on her whoredom. Of course, again, everyone knows. Lizzie is completely unmarriageable and Tommy marries her for some convoluted plot reasons and because the true love of his life died in Season 1 or something. Tommy essentially transfers his own social status onto Lizzie out of a kind of charitable cause.
A more succinct version of this comes from a passing line in the movie Bull Durham. One of the baseball players is marrying Millie, a notorious female fan of the team who sleeps with all of the players. One of the other players makes a quip about Millie's promiscuity which prompts the protagonist, Crash Davis (played by Kevin Costner), to harshly respond, "Anybody talks bad about Millie, I break his neck."
One of the features of the kind of late-traditional gender role structure is a handbook for treating sluts. They don't get to operate incognito, and they're kind of unmarriagable but 1. You don't call them out on the sluttery and 2. If they do get married, it's kind of a sexual carwash for them.
This helped things work. Now, with "ethical slut" / "ethical non-monogamy" being a "thing" (as the kids say), people are forced to look at this directly and the reaction is what it has always been - sluttery is bad.
Pride and prejudice offers a bit of a different view on the matter. Marriage can cleanse the transgression provided its marriage to the other fornicator.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So to spell it out, in your view it was the unmet specific obligation of the fratboys involved to carefully conceal the incident from a) the sorority queen bee and her minions b) clueless male students of the same college whom the woman in question sees as potential future boyfriends/husbands.
If necessary/possible, otherwise at least plead in her favor and defend her from accusations and insinuations.
I see where you're coming from, and it does seem relevant here but "kissing can be fine, but kissing and telling is rape" is not, IMHO, a viable legal standard. Especially since I'm not aware of it being codified anywhere relevant here. It's dangerously close to ex post facto to criminalize actions based on words separated by months or years, unless it was considered a separate crime.
And if this was truly the standard, going on a nationwide media court-of-public-opinion press tour as part of your civil litigation strategy is, uh, not a good look either.
Of course, rape accusations are way beyond the pale as retaliation, and absolutely the law should be blind to the social games being played here. I'm just talking about why she was wronged which explains (but not excuse) why she reached for rape accusations.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Don't you think that there is too high a bar for this level of conspiracy and coordination in this particular social setting?
It's their duty not to spread rumors, to attempt to smother the rumor if they hear it being spread, to downplay it ("we were all so high we barely were aware of what was happening so it's not like she just puts out for anyone") and plead her case to the frat and sorority leadership. If none of it worked, I would have considered Male 1 to be pretty much honorbound to get in a serious longterm relationship with her at least until they're out of education, to shield her from social consequences.
Of course, her deserving such consideration went out the window when the rape accusations went in. But it's fun to imagine a world where people aren't all scumbags.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Right, and that is "the corrupting power of cock": men's faith that any woman (not dudes, though) has irretrievably lost status, even social existence, once a bro has stuck his dick inside her.
Scoot into the parallel universe of gay interactions, and penetration somehow doesn't seem to work that way. Eight dudes hooking up in various configurations, younger one plied with drugs by the others, and nobody would be surprised to hear that two of them ended up dating afterwards. I believe that's the way Sam Altman met his husband!
So women read yaoi to fantasize about being the kind of a person whom a man could have sex with, and not hate afterwards.
What must it be like to interact with a female peer, knowing that you and your friends desperately want to do something to her that you fully intend will diminish her as a person in your eyes? "This will destroy and disinvite you, please please pretty please can we do it?"
That scammer's mindset, all fake friendly warmth to the mark beforehand and cold contempt after?
I'll caveat that there's probably more selection effect than just orientation in this hypothetical. Gay orgy guys are not the only preference point, and there's some strong if not perfect barriers between the two. There's also some people where the orgy would be a fun weekend, and mixing alcohol and pot wouldn't be noteworthy, or 'vhs head cleaner', but ketamine would be a nope right out situation.
((And, conversely, there's a pretty nontrivial excluded middle the other direction: there's folk who are tied into the gay drug orgy hookup situation that wouldn't turn down a woman for a long-term relationship because she was, too. I'm not going to say every bi guy thinks the spuydjeks solution is desirable, but if it's a literal fantasy for me even as a monogamous bi guy, and no small number of less monogamous bi guys are more openly willing to chase it. That might be a 1% of male population thing, but we're not exactly talking a supermajority of yaoi fangirls out there, either.))
This is fascinating stuff, I always love getting little windows into other groups' relationship politics.
Curious if the non-orgy gay guys have that sentiment of postcoital sexual disgust and contempt for a partner who's been penetrated, or what @rayon calls "the corrupting power of cock"?
Like, maybe some guys wouldn't marry another dude who was actively sleeping around, sure. But in the gay community do you see men suggesting that friends are impure or vile or undateable because of contact with a single-digit number of other men's cocks? In a parallel situation to this frat party, does the drugged ketamine novice get ostracized, deemed forever gross and undateable, disinvited from parties for not having put up more resistance to the other guys?
There's a small fraction of gay men that treat anyone less masculine or that willingly bottoms like they're 'less right', and a larger extent where 'submissive and breedable' or 'bottom energy' is a not-the-most-friendly compliment, but neither aligns well to the orgy/no-orgy line, and neither are overwhelmingly popular.
That one's a definite no. A manslut might not be a specific person's idea of a good partner, but there's so many well-known and well-liked self-described mansluts that it's clear a lot of other people would want them.
I'm not very familiar with the heavy drug user side (or, to be honest, even the 'light' drug users, like poppers, marijuana, and alcohol), so I can't speak with too much confidence, there. My personal take would be kinda squicked out whether they were topping, bottoming, or sitting in a hotel chair high off their gourd, but I don't know what the average intuition for the hard drug orgy side would come out to.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You'll have to forgive me for not knowing the background: what exactly is this?
Sorry. It's a MMF romantic relationship.
To be fair to the yaoi fangirl hypothesis, the artist is a woman. To be slightly more descriptive, the comment section has an absolute ton of guys wishing for one of the two slots.
Ah, ok, I think I see it now. I thought that was MMM at first and simply missed the context clues from the post.
I do notice that the pairing appears to be highly masc/androgynous masc/actual girl, though, which is interesting. Seems like it's really convenient to have both a physical rock of the relationship, and then one who's more 'aligned' with the girl's other interests, yet also have them not be the same person.
It makes me suspect that there are a couple of possible attraction modes for the modal woman: one for physical dominance where it would be unattractive for them to worry about the alignment/feels stuff, and one for alignment/feels where it would be unattractive for them to worry about the physical stuff, where one man also serves as a stabilizing force for the other, or rather, isn't going to be turned off by the attribute that's unattractive to the woman. I get the distinct impression that trying to do both ends poorly.
And I see no indication why that wouldn't hold sexually as well, or even necessarily be unworkable in practice- though it does mode-lock the more andro male into a role that might not necessarily have been the most productive thing for them to do.
(And really, if there's only one objection I have to being in/trying to start a gay relationship with someone, it's this. Sure, I could lock myself into the physically dominant role, which is what he clearly requires of me to bother flirting back, but that's not where I get most of the joy out of a relationship... and so inevitably I'd end up doing the exact same threesome thing to do the emotion/build-up things I couldn't do with that partner, which from other experience is inevitably going to feel like cheating, because in truth it kind of is.)
My read on yaoi fangirls is that they're more aware of this dynamic than the general populace. Which, if it's written by more-aware-than-average women, seems correct, but falls short on productive ways to deal with that (other than explicitly form a polycule, which seems like a hyper-autistic solution to both recognize and resolve the cognitive dissonance about 'cheating' I described earlier... and evidence bears that out).
(As an aside, I notice that there are some women who sometimes aren't always aware of this, and get kind of confused when this 'threesome' dynamic asserts itself under certain conditions, because [if you only consider the existence of the physical dom position] the andro man is by that definition malfunctioning because there is no 'andro' role, so what is [in full context] male co-operation can only [from the first perspective] be observed as 2 doms fighting over the single position. Maybe men instinctively understand this dynamic better, but good luck getting them to tell you it exists.)
I don't know if this effect is symmetric or mirrored across to yuri fanboys or by extension MFF couplings. More research is clearly required.
There's a real pattern there in broad strokes, and with more layers than you'd expect, in no small part because there is a genuine contradiction. The physical rock character's stoic, good at problem-solving, traditionally masculine... and this is simultaneously desirable and absolutely infuriating to most women, since it seems belittling even in its best form where it solves problems easily and correctly. The Other One is emotionally open, in touch with his feminine side, risk-taking, and very understanding any triggers from past relationships/male authority figures... and also doesn't really come across as the sort of person a woman she be chasing, and not just in the stereotypical 'bad boy' way, either. Which, to be fair, can also be a fun taboo violation of its own, but still an awkward matter in a real relationship.
Yaoi fangirls are aware of a dynamic, because the genre formalizes one. Ukes are feminine, emotionally open, perceptive (often to a fault), shorter, and a bottom. Semes are masculine(ish), emotionally steady, inscrutable and less perceptive, taller and tops. In some circles, this can get as formal as hair color or blood type. Obviously, many of these associations are not real -- a lot of traditionally feminine skills in particular end up being pretty top- or switch-coded in practice, and a uke/seme excludes a pretty wide variety of real-world physiotypes -- but my guess from the outside is that they're part of what make yaoi attractive to women.
And in the real world, it doesn't really break down easily into one role or the other all the time, either in gay relationships or in M/M/F ones. In the trivial sense, there's a lot of switches, but more broadly it's extremely rare for people to have the same level of confidence and awareness in all fields, or just daily variation in personality expression. It's hard to actually set up a reciprocal norm when at the raw flirting stage, but it's something that tends to evolve pretty quickly in a real relationship in my experience and in those I've seen second-hand.
I have absolutely no idea on yuri/FF. Not really my thing, and while I'm aware of butch/femme people and how they act, I can't say much as to how well they generalize.
I'm kinda curious which one of spudyjek's guys seems androgynous masc to you. In her adult content, they tend to swap (the gray-furred bat is socially confident but physically vulnerable, the white-furred rabbit is socially vulnerable but physically confident... most of the time, but between furry genre assumptions and knowing about that content, I'm not going to get the same read as an outsider would.
I take the opposite view, where the genre (and its conventions) exist as a natural extension of how people subconsciously act -> it works because it inherently resonates. Categories for the (wo)man, and all that.
And sure, that's complicated by the lowest-effort to express, perhaps like love triangles are for het or yuri romance (such that I believe this is just something the typical man likes and that criticisms that it's "tropey" are more from people who have enough mental capacity to both notice that pattern and get bored of it), but if it works for most people in the target audience, then it's probably a signal about that audience.
Which is why it seems that a solution to that paradox is to spend effort abstracting that tendency into a symbol [of... attraction, acceptance, devotion, I... guess?] and move on (and so places where that abstraction breaks down re: 'mansplaining' are going to feel worse, since that abstraction is broken -> proof/meaningfulness of accepting it happens is not only denied and the person/group for whom that emotional work was done is now the exact thing denying its worth). Reminds me of how certain Christians approach God for what I'm pretty sure are the same reasons. (See also: notice me, senpai!)
If I recall correctly, the second quick pass of the given examples suggested it was the black one. The white one does have some signals of this (most stereotypically the glasses), but he also appears to be quite a bit larger and isn't usually doing the 'girly' thing in the linked example.
This is more trying to compare and contrast how straight men see MFF throuples in opposition to how [straight?] women see MMF throuples (I guess I could just read Ouran High School Host Club for a bunch of other examples that I remember even the show just outright stating, but anything other than MM non-twins aren't currently in scope and that's not really the only dynamic featured in there). Gender isn't a symmetric "object" so it's not just "the same thing but flipped" should you examine it in front of a mirror, so to speak (for instance, men and women both might find opposite-sex-twins-on-self-insert hot, but I don't get the impression that men are attracted to the cascade of background of emotional connection leading up to whatever it is they're doing that women seem to be), or rather, examining "what lines up with what" seems to me to be the wrong tool with which to examine the question.
Yet you still seem to require some background awareness of it, especially when you're trying to flirt with someone who doesn't know that. And then that background awareness colors every other interaction (even when it's not meant that way).
For example,
Yeah, totally a mystery as to how that would be appealing to straight women at all- either of the two modes it's going to go into (which is either 'why yaoi has that name' or focused a lot more on the emotional side, which is something that isn't really found much in yuri made by men even though it's something I would naively expect from both sides of a lesbian relationship [but for different reasons in each participant]). Then again, I'm also aware that lesbians are very unusual, so...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This either/or thinking doesn't check out to me. Scan women's romance literature and you'll find countless instances of the ideal being a strong and physically protective male partner who's also tender and emotionally attentive, something like having a guard dog who's tough to other people but a sweetie to you.
I suspect some women don't have a lot of experience meeting this type IRL, so it's likely that the splitting into tender partner + strong partner is a workaround for someone who's been traumatically convinced that strong + tender (or, as Sabrina Carpenter says, "jacked and kind") combo doesn't exist in a single man. You see something similar in the many romance heroes who are constructed as dashing and brash while also having some kind of physical handicap or emotional wound, which is perceived as making them safer to be around.
Then, too, there are a lot of people who falsely believe they display unappreciated "tenderness" when actually they're just passive or defensively/anxiously polite, neither of which is especially attractive.
I think it's just rare and a natural adaptation for there not being enough for those types for everyone.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Nobody is claiming that drunken frat bros were good guys here.
What seems to have happened is there was a social role of ‘young lady’ that was violated, the sorority decided she wasn’t going to parties anymore, and she went nuclear. This is woman drama with a few unsympathetic young men caught in the crossfire.
I do claim Male #1 was a good guy.
He had sex with her, contacted her afterwards to inquire about her well being, continued pursuing a romantic or at least friendly relationship with her, and invited her to a party (presumably as his guest). What else do you expect him to do?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To paraphrase Scott since I don't remember the source, don't hate the player, hate the lazy millions-of-years-old evolutionary meme generator that optimizes for stupid things. Sexual exclusivity was ~always the deal in heterosexual relationships, and seems likely to remain the deal; I too have my gripes with certain "faiths" and behaviors of women w/r/t dating and sex, but that's the table stakes.
Can't speak for the meatheads in question, but I imagine that nobody thought this through and (as with the woman) the idea sounded pretty exciting to the men beforehand, the immediate aftermath was pretty cordial from circumstantial evidence, and it wasn't until the inevitable rumor mill and social consequences kicked in that there was any destruction taking place. (Another strike against the social media panopticon.)
Make no mistake, I defend the men here only insofar as they are slaves to sexual/social incentives they can't unilaterally change. I am however also against promoting female hypoagency, and think that normalizing making certain choices like not getting into what sounds highly similar to a gangbang with drugs and men you barely know involved, as suggested downthread, would be a good start.
Implausible that you'd find a sexual instinct so strong as to be irresistible in straight men, but not appearing at all in gay male sexuality. But it's irrelevant because the central issue here is not just male preference for women's sexual exclusivity; it's male gang-bang/promiscuous seduction instinct in combination with male preference for female sexual exclusivity. That is, it's not just sexual disgust, it's sexual disgust in the context of prior sexual aggression. Not just "sex defiles you," but "sex defiles you, AND we get to use everything in our power, including lies, drugs, false promises, intimidation, gossip to manipulate you into having sex so you can be defiled."
(For the second half, given that the male gangbang instinct is empirically observed to apply to old women, ugly women, corpses of dead women, children and babies, women who are visibly being raped to death by this act, I don't buy the universal "hey guys this thing is incapacitated, everybody come over and fuck it!" impulse as part of any kind of procreation program; seems much likelier to be an an accidental transfer from group hunting or prey-drive behaviors.)
Still more broadly, though, evolution has optimized us for many incentive-driven instinctive behaviors that Mottizens nonetheless expect others to control via reason - including theft and robbery, gang violence, gambling, child abuse, binging McDonalds and avoiding the gym. There are people who make a living by blackmailing old folks with AI-spoofed ransom pleas from their grandchildren, they technically have "consent" to take that money and it makes good evolutionary sense to do so: would you sigh and cite "don't hate the player, hate evolution" if you found a son of yours running that con? If the idea is that young men are just trousered apes (brain so small balls so big), that would have some serious downstream implications for Cornell grads' job prospects.
I don't think "not appearing at all" is valid here (I imagine gay men would also like their partners to be faithful to them, for one, though "gay relationships are just ✿better✿ without all this dumb het monkey-neuron baggage" is a common headcanon among fujos in my experience), but even assuming arguendo - really? Even without leaving the topic of gay porn, it's plainly observable that gay porn for straights, gay porn for gays, and gay porn for women are three radically different categories. Straights and gays are indeed attracted to different things. Do you think it's a coincidence that traps/femboys tend to look like young women (hint: it's in the name)?
In any case, you've missed my main point:
We are actually in agreement that the former produces ungood results and is overall uncouth and bad; the difference is that you also condemn the latter, whereas I point out the impossibility of being rid of it, as "the corrupting power of cock", ie sexual exclusivity, is more or less the core of male heterosexuality. You expect your gf to not fuck around, or vice versa, only elevate a woman who doesn't fuck around to the position of "gf". Visible disregard for fidelity is disqualifying.
Hence, the men's initial offer and the whole "free pussy" part were straightforwardly unsavory (and are what's actually contemptible about them, here), but the gradual dissociation from the woman after the fact, especially once the rumors started getting out, is at the very least unsurprising considering the nature of a gangbang. Again, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. This ain't Manacled, she wasn't getting adopted by a gaggle of
vampire billionaireshandsome strong men as some kind of honorary gf, and the first guy to step up and defend m'lady would've instantly made himself the scapegoat hate-sink and designated loser (and I heard women happen to not like socially-shunned losers much, so everyone loses anyway). Absent airtight privacy, which I don't think you ever have at a frat house, this could only ever end in catastrophe; as mentioned somewhere downthread, in the current_year there isn't a word for "woman regrets a sexual encounter". In the grim darkness of the literal present, there is only rape.To reiterate, much of this could have been avoided by the woman by simply uh, controlling via reason some of her baser impulses, like that to attend a drug-fueled gangbang. Even if the gentlemen in a sudden show of cojones managed to coordinate and close ranks around m'lady, with seven impulsive men and one easily-swayed woman vs. literally the entire zeitgeist hankering for a good ol' rape scandal, not to mention frat/sor heads covering their own asses, the odds are pretty grim.
I would never condemn a monogamous male's preference for a similarly faithful girlfriend, but we should be clear that by male sexual disgust we're not talking "not wanting to marry a poly person," we're talking about men with the sadistic conviction that because they themselves drugged a girl then gang-banged her as she slipped in and out of consciousness, they can then (by your account) spread rumors about her, ridicule any friend who'd want to date her or even speak up in her defense, "dissociate themselves from her," disinvite her from their parties. That's not visceral sexual preference, it's just pure irrational bullying/pack-hunting drive toward someone who now seems like a vulnerable target. It's extremely feasible to not act like a sociopathic bully to a girl you took advantage of, and I think as a society that we should support people in this endeavor.
This is why I brought up the phone scammer earlier, because there are plenty of similar cases where an evil person can take advantage of asymmetrical information to fuck over somebody gullible. We may regard the victim as foolish, but we don't usually argue that the scammers should go unpunished because the victim ought to have expected that literally everyone they meet would be trying to lie, cheat and steal from them.
In this case, I'd be curious as to what "base impulse" the woman voluntarily followed, other than being prior friends with the boys there, trusting them enough to attend their party and believing they wouldn't voluntarily harm her? There's certainly no indication she thought she was attending a "drug-fueled gangbang," and everything else plays out more like her being a gullible mark with poor self-defense skills than a voluntary participant. The fratbros were very experienced with ketamine; she had never taken it before. They were on their home turf with the strength of numbers; she was smaller and physically vulnerable, which would make most people nervous and placating. I'm sure they pitched the first dose as just a fun party drug (if they didn't straight-up spike her drink, since she says she doesn't remember taking the first time). The drug they forced on her was a dissociative anaesthetic commonly used to tranquilize large animals through treatment they'd normally resist, and it seems to have worked to incapacitate her exactly as intended, even they proceeded to pressure her to take a whole bunch more. By the time the bros stepped things up from hangout to invited gangbang, she was too far gone to speak clearly, much less handle the delicate social work of extricating herself safely from a roomful of big, strong, horny young men.
I would never set foot in a frat house, but I've accepted drinks from male friends at parties, and as far as I can see, anyone who ever accepts a drink from a guy at a party could end up slippery-sloping into this situation. Absent some general principle like "never trust any man however friendly he may seem, know that they are all sadistic liars and manipulators, choose the bear instead" (which folks hereabout tend to also frown on), what would you propose she should have done to avoid your moral opprobrium?
I commend the smooth slide into cataclysmic gender-wide implications, "delicate social work of extricating herself safely from a roomful of big, strong, horny young men" is especially evocative. Still, this is highly overwrought, I don't particularly care for this kind of argument.
No matter how you embellish the literal descriptors, the core issue remains that the initial offer was straightforwardly unsavory, and the woman, holding highly unrealistic expectations (inb4 "what, to not be treated like a piece of meat?", to which my answer begins with "play stupid games"), decides in sound mind to take it. Afterwards rumors get out, as rumors do in their kind of environment (do we even have evidence that the guys started them?), the woman discovers she doesn't like the label that her social circle assigns to women that voluntarily participate in gangbangs, and (only at that point, not before!) reaches straight for a superweapon and outsources her problem to the public court. Judging from cordial text exchanges, she evidently didn't regret the sex she had in the short term - only the reputation it has eventually wrought her. Such oopsies are usually avoided by thinking through the things you want to do, and considering risks wherever you take them beforehand (and you vividly describe how great the risk is, here); neither the men nor the woman have done this here, and now female hypoagency dictates that she is blameless.
My issue is mostly with the last part.
Would you say the fratboys are going unpunished, here? Haven't there been expulsions already? Nothing is ever enough in culture war I guess, but irregardless of that, I haven't even argued they should go unpunished - only that they don't have the entirety of the blame here, and even that seems too much to stomach. You're too comfortable putting words in my mouth.
As mentioned above, not getting into group sex with drugs and men you barely know involved would be a good start. Not hurling spurious rape accusations as soon as her reputation came under threat would also be nice, but given that "there is only rape" I suppose the, ahem, incentives made it inevitable.
OK, I had a whole thing typed out about how even I, an extremely square and boring coed, have in the past been guilty of visiting a guy I had a crush on, at his all-male residence, or being tipsy around men, or even trustingly accepting some kind of intoxicant from a male friend that they knew the effect of far better than me; and asking, which I'd genuinely like to know, whether your claim is that this constituted my consent "in sound mind" for said friend to horse-tranquilizer me, call his buddies to gang-rape me, then brag and make fun of me after.
But let's try a different tack. Suppose you get an email that contains a link saying "Please click here for important information about safeguarding your tax rebate." You click the link and it instead takes you to a site that steals your bank information and drains your account.
Put the case that the email is:
Obviously you decided to click. And now you regret having clicked. But it's not a question of changing your mind, it's a question of deception by a malicious party. Also, in all of these cases you could have exercised due diligence to protect yourself from what was obviously a negative-utility outcome, but you let social trust make you complacent. In which of these would you say you are culpable to any degree, or have "played a stupid game" so you deserve to "win stupid prizes"?
I'm processing this case as Doe thinking she was in #2 and was willing to forgive/comfort the offenders for the harm of that night; then found she was actually in #3 and got mad. It sounds like you might think it was #1 and that she was an absolute idiot to click the link, but then isn't the conclusion "Girls, treat all men like Nigerian scammers, even the ones you think are your friends"?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The message that people, especially women, have sent in the last 70? years is that love is transactional, divorce for any reason whatsoever is OK and the sexual marketplace is to essentially function as a anarcho-capitalistic matching market where you are entitled to nothing and everything goes. We title partners as "low" and "high" value, assign numbers to people, commoditize them on dating apps.
If you work extremely hard to commoditise and devalue things like love, then why would you be surprised that things turn into a zero-sum anything goes amoral all-against-all?
People respond to incentives. The incentive for men is to defect in the face of the defection of women. Why propose if you will get divorced in 10 years and half your stuff taken? Why stick around when you have a roster? Because of religion? Women don't believe in that either? Because you worship women as a thing, as a concept? Well most don't.
If you want to bring back chivalry, you either have to bring back the moral system that produced it or engineer men to be subservient and un-self interested. Which women then wouldn't want to have sex with in the first place.
If she wanted altruistic, value-driven men she would have shopped around at an orphanage, volunteered at a homeless shelter or gone to church. She chose an environment where she'd be treated like a piece of meat and well that's what she got.
More options
Context Copy link
Admittedly a lazy question but here it goes anyway: in the earlier discussion on this incident that took place here one highlight/moment that was mentioned was that this woman, supposedly already drunk and drugged out of her mind at that point, accepted a proposal from two guys to have a threesome, apparently under the assumption that this will actually entail her getting to watch homo sex happening. I imagine her disappointment contributed to her regretful recollection of that night’s events afterwards. One one hand I think this should be cause for a conversation on the brain-rotting effects of prevalent literary porn consumption among college-educated single women. On the other hand, is this even getting commented on?
What is the deal with the hetero female obsession with gay stuff? It seems much more intense than the male desire to watch girl-on-girl that really only exists because of the practicalities of filming porn.
Steve Sailer quoting two of his readers on this subject back in 2006
More options
Context Copy link
Male desire is more heavily policed. "catering to the male gaze" is considered something to be increasingly avoided. Not so for female sexuality. They are allowed to go wild.
I meant that it's easier/cheaper to get actresses to do girl/girl stuff than to get penetrated by a stranger's biological penis on-camera.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
LOL, yeah, that was probably the only truly funny part about the whole ordeal, maybe the "we're shutting down whatever the fuck this is" part comes in second. Also solidifies my judgment that she's kind of an idiot. Not necessarily low IQ idiot, but idiot nonetheless.
Not sure it was a key contributing factor, but certainly a sign of how out of touch her fantasies were from reality.
Another commenter noted that she's supposedly a jacked female bodybuilder. If this is the case I'm guessing the dude who shut it all down did so partially because he was just weirded out by the spectacle.
Makes me wonder if her horniness was, let's say, hormone enhanced.
It makes sense. Women obviously have no innate conception of the effect of T on the sex drive and what it can compel them to do.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not a bodybuilder at all. A powerlifter. They are built like brick shithouses, but aren't grotesque even when doped to the gills: https://youtube.com/watch?v=EmIa6_231Tw
I tried looking for the alleged person on OpenPowerlifting, but didn't find a record. So they may just be a general strength enthusiast rather than a powerlifter™.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
These incidents aren’t even about feminism. It’s really trad male-female relations based on evolutionary biology trying to interact with a rules based legal system. Different religions all had different ways of dealing with this. Muslims not letting females leave the house. Christian’s heavy social shame.
The issue is feminism claims women are free to make their own decisions and make adult decisions while females instinctively know sperm is cheap/eggs are expensive so they have a lot of social norms to deal with that in various cultures.
Obviously pretty much every society had girls who would get gangbanged. They were prostitutes. Usually poor and/or foreigners.
In this case the gang bangee thought she was living in a rationalist free women world but that her sorority shamed her and got her uninvited from future parties…..until she like lived a monastic life for 6 months and wouldn’t give her pussy out for free. Social interactions within communities are still mostly governed by ancient norms locally. It’s not until your an adult in a major city where everyone doesn’t know everyone that you can go get gang banged without social repercussions.
The one annoying thing is how many “enlightened leftist” end up saying this wasn’t rape…….but I still don’t approve of this behavior and these were bad men. I’ve got to respect Aella here because when she’s getting gangbanged thru her personal taste she doesn’t expect society to call the guys banging her out degenerates.
It’s funny we had a rave posts the other day. But there’s ton of people doing drugs that stimulate sexual interests. Sometimes people who are not bad people choose to do drugs to lower inhibition.
Let's not get carried away here. If this woman wanted to get gangbanged by men outside her immediate social circle at college so that her reputation doesn't suffer it was well within hear means to make that happen.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sigh. Is feminism back? I know it's a bit "boo outgroup", but I really honestly and truly did really enjoy the past couple of years. I felt much less on edge, no longer walking on eggshells all the time, and like we could all mutually start to look at reality and see the same thing again, laugh at jokes about sex, appreciate scantily dressed women, understand that the sexes actually do behave differently from one another for reasons other than "privilege".
At any rate, the only thing that actually matters to me in this case is the question of: did they specifically give her ketamine beyond what she actually "wanted"? I suppose a secondary question may then be: if they did, did they do that maliciously or unknowingly?
I'm afraid I haven't heard too much discussion about the question of the ketamine on the Motte so far, it's been more about the social mores of having sex, and whether she was lying about not wanting to have sex. But to me, the only thing that really determines whether I think any actual wrongdoing took place is whether she deliberately took the drugs or not. I suppose we will never really know - she probably doesn't even remember whether she actually wanted to take that ketamine at the time. And the whole world has now decided that "no, she didn't want the ketamine and it was forcibly given to her to make her have sex against her will".
More options
Context Copy link
If you don't want to risk being thought a slut, don't have a drug-addled gangbang, it's really not that hard.
Nobody's going to bail me out if I blow up my account by abusing leverage recklessly. I won't be a 'rich guy who made a mistake', I'll be poor because the value of my wealth has declined. It won't be unjust, it wasn't as if I got robbed. I made a risky decision and it went poorly. If I made that decision while drunk or drug-addled, that doesn't change the outcome, I still have to own it.
How can the bad element here be 'disinviting her from a Halloween party' or 'being considered a slut by her sorority'? Who cares, it's just a party. Not getting invited to a party does not remotely justify a rape case.
It's not like she was an 11 year old being groomed over a period of time into performing these sex acts, with an implicit threat of violence if she refused. If it were actual grooming and actual rape, then it would be a really serious matter.
How can the collective/zeitgeist of women possibly be appeased of these frustrations? How does she force a fuckboy to commit without taking away his ability to consent? Is he to be a male sex slave? A virgin until he chooses his forever wife? I appreciate that it might be frustrating to have a live-in boyfriend who won't propose but what's the problem with that? As long as he loves her, what does marriage matter? He hasn't gotten down on his knees to give her a ring he paid for, he hasn't legally shared half his stuff with her if they break up. He might just decide to leave and upend her life, damn, imagine how that would feel...
The state doesn't punish cuckoldry, it doesn't punish women belittling men, it doesn't punish e-girls extracting huge founts of cash from lonely loser men... Should it? Do we need thot police regulating how female streamers act online, as a criminal offence, rather than purely platform-based codes of conduct? Put them in a burkha perhaps, so they can show their personalities rather than their bodies? There are endless male complaints about women that women sure wouldn't enjoy if they were enforced by weaponizing the legal system.
The messy grey areas of sexual relations are unsuitable for law, they should be dealt with by shaming and rumours and informal methods. Same with sluts or cads for that matter. Law shouldn't be used as a mallet to hammer every problem humans face in life, it's already grossly overused.
I don't mean to be aggressive against you personally, you're making a light-shedding descriptive argument about how some feel frustrated. But the descriptive argument if true seems pretty ugly.
Unfortunately the social reality is that 'being considered a slut by her sorority' is a fatal tragedy in the eyes of the average female college student who, on the other hand, has been indoctrinated from her youth, as have been her parents, that trying to sexually shame women for anything is absolutely taboo.
I think you’re way overestimating the penetration of feminist norms around slut shaming.
And over-estimating the prevalence of Greek life.
I still remember back in college when I tried having a conversation with a girl in gamers' club. She immediately started talking about how afraid/concerned she was over sexual assault at frat parties.
I should have reminded her that we were at a flyover-state university that doesnt have frats or sororities, and even if we were, those parties are easily avoided by not going to them. Since I never saw Animal House, I really didn't have much of a concept of fraternities beyond "place where rape happens" so I was always confused as to how they find people to attend these parties.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think I'm overestimating it among female college students. I think the clear cultural messages have been conveyed to them for a long time that a) slut-shaming is done by angry and bitter men b) any male complaints about or negative reactions to female sexual behavior are fundamentally loser-coded and are to be dismissed. So I'm guessing she assumed that the fratboys were behind her getting disinvited from the party and it fueled her anger.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I subscribe to the idea that literally everyone involved was degenerate for their participation in the act (the girl and the guys alike); her escalation into rape accusations is another matter entirely and does not reflect kindly on her or her ability to own her mistakes. But:
I really just think progs and trads alike would only be satisfied with the reintroduction of The Patriarchy™ (and probably not even then). They are literally stating that women do not have the capacity to regulate their own sexuality and cannot take full responsibility like adults when they get themselves into situations that make them feel shame or do not yield the outcomes they want, and that the responsibility should be displaced onto men collectively, who must decide on their behalf what would be good for them or read their mind to divine what they Really Want, then regulate their sexuality for them by preemptively stopping them from making stupid decisions and putting out in a way that won’t yield results. They are all just babes in the woods who cannot be expected to assess risk or bear the consequences when their gambits fail, the poor dears. If a woman doesn’t get what she wanted or expected, someone must be hung for it.
Of course, you can’t expect every single man on earth to take responsibility for a woman’s Honour and Dignity, so the practical implementation of this is to provide her father and brothers and other male relatives who would naturally care about her the most with the authority to make sure it is preserved. Frankly the discourse surrounding this is some Islam Is Right About Women-tier shit, and I struggle with not believing that women’s lib was a horrible mistake when women en masse seem intent on demonstrating that they are radically unsuited for the “empowerment” they so value. If I didn’t know better I would think this was a conspiracy to turn people into misogynists; it’s just so farcical that I could not have dreamt up better ammunition if I tried.
Hello problem redditor, big fan of your contributions that brings light to mens issues. I wanted to ask something about DV. Why does using modified CTC by Stratus in these reasearch (in India and other Asian countries) found no gender symmetry at all?
Eg: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30983711/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30533949/
These studies show almost no gender symmetry even though they have used modified CTC. They describe it as male perpetrated and tell no gender symmetry exists(the sample size is too small but the findings I don't think I can dismiss)
So what goes on in studies like this and what exactly do they do in their methodologies that leads to data like this? Because in PASK I can see that they found near gender symmetry. But for some reason in asian or middle eastern countries it is not the case. They almost always mention it is done by men over women citing a vague patriarchal motive i.e men are inherently bound to harm thier spouses. Though I will admit in those countries male victimization is understudied and virtually no literature exists about it.
Does PASK address these studies showing male perpetration and still come to conclusions that DV is nearly gender symmetric? Especially government surveys like NFHS and so on.
Also studies like this https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1077801214521324
I wouldn't say that in Southern Asia it is exclusively male perpetrated as there is involvement of in-laws who are mostly or always women so that skews things a bit.
But I wanted to know what causes this disparity. Why do research in western countries show gender parity while in other countries it shows the opposite? Does a country becoming more egalitarian increase violence by women? If so wouldn't that prove the patriarchy conjecture as it tells that men are inclined to control women when they have power thereby oppressing them?
Where can I know more about these things and be aware of bad researches on DV?
Firstly, thank you. Secondly, I see people are coming off Reddit to find me now. I stopped doing this because I'm now supremely busy (and dealing with the absolute state of gender research and discourse was like trying to stem a river of diarrhoea with my hands for no good reason), but since you went to the trouble of actually getting here I'll try to respond.
Regarding the two studies you linked from India, you're correct that the sample size is small, but in my opinion an even bigger issue is that the "modified CTS" (from what I see, these studies are actually using questionnaires based off the modified CTS) is being utilised here in two separate studies conducted a year apart, one which only studies men and one which only studies women. I'd be very careful with this. Since they were conducted in two different sessions these studies can feature subtly different questions, interviewing norms, and methodologies, and the "methods and materials" section of the study is very high level and does not provide a whole lot of methodological detail other than really high-level coverage of basics; they may very well have adapted their approach over time. Without detailed methodological information, it's possible that the questions administered or the approach taken to the respondents in both studies may have been subtly different. Timing is also itself a problem - different survey waves mean different historical contexts, and there may be real changes in prevalence or in willingness to disclose over time. This confounds any attempt to compare between the two studies.
From a cursory read of the studies it does appear that there were differences in the questionnaire administered; e.g. economic violence was assessed in the female study, while it was excluded in the male study, and it's hard to know how differences like that would affect respondent behaviour within the study. As an example of how this can work, it's possible for there to be a priming and framing effect wherein a longer questionnaire assessing a broader list of behaviours signals a wider definition of violence, and can change what respondents recall and count as abusive, including in other domains like physical violence. In general it's always better to source either a meta-analysis featuring a very large curated swath of studies that harmonises definitions, assesses study quality, and models between-study heterogeneity, or to use a singular study where the explicit goal is to provide comparative data for the sexes, instead of picking out two different studies conducted at two different times and then trying to compare figures from these to come to an overall conclusion.
There have, however, been studies conducted with the goal of providing a large slate of comparative data that surveys men and women in many different countries; a pretty early example of this is the International Dating Violence Study, with results summarised here. They asked students regarding their domestic violence perpetration, and if an incident was reported they asked about bidirectionality. The results from India show that approximately equal proportions of men and women perpetrated minor violence on their partners, and a higher proportion of women perpetrated severe violence compared to men. Of those relationships with violence, 8.3% featured male perpetration only, 16.6% featured female perpetration only, and 75% was bidirectional. You'll note that if you look at the figures for Middle Eastern countries in the paper there's also gender symmetry. This isn't the only one either; there are many studies like that around, showing the same patterns.
Oh, this is Johnson. To be quite frank, this is probably one of the single worst domestic violence researchers I have ever come across; his entire body of academic work has entirely been him trying to create two different categories of domestic violence: "Common couple violence" and "intimate terrorism", with the first occurring out of routine frustration and the latter being perpetrated out of a desire for control. He claims that the former is largely gender symmetrical and the latter is mostly male-perpetrated, and around the '00s and '10s he basically tried to launder a false idea of gender asymmetry into academia. When he first attempted to prove this claim he literally used samples that included either known female victims of male violence or samples drawn from crime surveys of women’s victimisation using only women's reports. When this was actually tested by other researchers using non-selected general population samples, it was repeatedly found again, and again, and again, and again that intimate terrorism as per his own typology was either gender symmetrical or majority female-perpetrated. Johnson of course does not want to acknowledge all this research as it delegitimises his ideology and his "contribution" to the field.
In this study, in order to try and save face he claims that asking people about their experiences with "ex-spouses" is much more of a better measure than asking them about their current relationships, and says that in survey data he finds more intimate terrorist ex-husbands compared to intimate terrorist ex-wives. But his data source for this study is the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS), which isn't the best source to draw from, to say the least. As this blogger notes; "The study was never intended to measure domestic violence in both genders. It was developed by feminist researchers for the purpose of exclusively surveying women [7]. Indeed, for the first three months of the study, only female respondents were interviewed [8]. The CDC later decided to add a male sample as well. However, the male respondents were not treated equally in this survey. While all female respondents were assigned female interviewers, only half of the male respondents were assigned a male interviewer [9]. A further bias, or a consequence of the above mentioned biases, was the much higher refusal rate among men in the survey (45% vs 36%) [10]. Because of these methodological and statistical biases, the findings of this study are far from the last word on the subject." Given the issues with the survey and its methodology, such research operating off the NVAWS is not to be taken as definitive proof of, well, anything. Yet the state of the academy is such that this is the kind of research people are touting as "evidence" for their pet theories.
Honestly, dissidents are dispersed all over the internet and many of the old guard that were critical of SocJus academia have dispersed now. And given my inactivity lately on gender issues, I'm probably not the best person to ask for up-to-date, centralised sources which actually go in-depth on the problems with progressive academia. It also increasingly seems to me like the popularity of the old identity politics hobbyhorses of the 2010s have largely waned in popular discourse as well, and the focus has shifted to new things like AI and the Iran War and so on. While feminism/women's studies is still an extremely powerful lobby and still produces a lot of crap academic work, in popular-discourse circles these kinds of topics seem to have gotten increasingly stale.
Or maybe I'm just less terminally online. Hard to say.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Patriarchy is not rule by men collectively. It’s rule by, specifically, fathers- and under most patriarchies age is the dominant factor, not gender, distinguishing the rulers from the ruled.
It’s true that under a patriarchy this never would have happened… because there wouldn’t be a house of young men.
In reality it is even more subtle, with older women usually having a lot of power, but exercising that power either through their husband or by using social weapons, like shaming.
More options
Context Copy link
Hence "Of course, you can’t expect every single man on earth to take responsibility for a woman’s Honour and Dignity, so the practical implementation of this is to provide her father and brothers and other male relatives who would naturally care about her the most with the authority to make sure it is preserved."
And yes, patriarchy is not rule by men collectively, and definitely is not rule for the benefit of men either.
"Patriarchies" often do have associations of young men (and women); such things are not usually prohibited. The difference is that there wouldn't be commingling between men and women like what occurred here, and women in public would often have to be supervised by male guardians acting as their bodyguard and honour guard, and daddy would have the right to vet any kind of partner the girl wants to have such that she wouldn't bring back a cad who'd defile her honour. They were provided the power to do this not because society hated women, but because they were the ones held responsible for enforcing restitution when something happened.
I think you would hear the screaming from orbit if we were to actually place restrictions on women to maintain moral and social order on their behalf though, in spite of women's apparent inability to regulate their sexuality themselves. That would cramp their style too much you see. Better to let them put out for whoever they want without restriction, then make false rape accusations once they don't like the outcomes.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In a hyper individuated world, women can't control their sexuality. Neither can men. That's why, in every society in history sexuality has been heavily regulated by custom and law.
Maybe libertarian sexuality works really well for some subset of hyper-rational economically privileged people living in a co-op in Berkeley. Maybe. But for the large majority of people, men and women, that leads to ruin. Predictably, and we as a society have to bear the costs. Descriptively, they can't assess risk or bear consequences when their gambit fails, which calls for external regulation.
I'd like to stan libertarianism here: while I'm maybe a bit jaded on the overall concept these days, the notion is that you can (voluntarily) choose your sexual norms within your community. Libertarianism here, in theory, allows both headscarves and, uh, Aella to share the same streets. You can choose to wait until marriage and find someone into that. You can join a celibate monastic order. You can just do things.
I will admit it falls short in some situations: it's pretty easy to imagine the parties here aren't always acting purely voluntarily, and that there isn't coercion within communities to adopt tighter (or looser!) codes. I'm not sure you can build a community without at least some structure of convergent orthodoxy, but maybe a line could be drawn there.
Even in theory that only works if there is strict segregation between communities, because otherwise the pedo community will groom your kid and have him make 'free choices' that violate your norms. But human nature is simply not compatible with accepting the reality that other people are doing things that one considers morally wrong to such an extent that there is a moral duty to stop it, so it can never work in reality. There is not even really such a thing as voluntarily choosing things as people to a large extent irrational and do not even have the capability to choose their own norms, rather than live them through their actions.
The Cornell case is a good illustration of how the guys never actually broke the overt norms, yet are being persecuted because they broke norms that the involved people would claim they do not have.
People have individual principles to a far lesser degree than they pretend to, anyway, and to a large extent just use supposed principles as weapons. Only using them to get their way and not to limit their own actions, which is what really principles would result in. The only way to actually have somewhat consistent community norms is to enforce norms through social and legal pressure.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, and presumably in the system you’re imagining, men and women alike are to be heavily punished and held accountable for breaches of the sexual code, not this fucked-up one way system where agency and responsibility is placed on the man to Know Better as the ostensible buyers of sex under this framework (whereas expecting the seller not to give away free candy willy-nilly, then complain they were robbed because they just assumed people would donate after taking candy, is evidently too much to ask). That line of thinking naturally lends itself to a guardianship system, which is a system most people making this argument would feel very uncomfortable with. They are not taking their ideas to the logical conclusion; in my experience they would like women to be comparatively sexually unrestricted while at the same time believing that they should still possess the ability to displace responsibility onto the nearest man because they were just such poor little exploited damsels. It is untenable to let women freely put out and to let them still go crying for redress, sympathy and a shotgun wedding when they don’t get what they want out of their investment. Nobody can control a woman, yet everyone must avenge her nonetheless once she is unhappy with the consequences of her own actions.
I’m not a sexual libertine (as I said, everyone here is degenerate); I really just want things to be consistent. At this point I am completely inoculated to women's tears after having to listen to their incessant frivolous complaints blasted from every loudspeaker on maximum volume for over two decades.
To clarify, in a world where you are afforded the right to assess risk for yourself and freely make decisions as a liberated individual, you should also be expected to accept the consequences of these actions. People who gamble or invest in a highly leveraged crypto ETF that ends up losing them money might not be the best judges of risk, but as an adult they are judged to be able to make these decisions and suffer the consequences, without having the ability to point to the nearest person and displace all accountability. Many women and those white knights who compulsively create apologia for them appear to be congenitally incapable of accepting this.
We live in a sexually liberated world, and perhaps that is not the world we should live in, but it is. “Your standards applied consistently” and all that. Frankly I am also very perturbed by how trads seem to try and agree with feminists on things like these, instead of forcing them to adhere to the sexual liberation many of them claim to want for themselves. By carrying water for them trads are not actually helping bring about the trad system they so valorise, they’re just pushing the Overton Window in the direction of Sexual Liberation+, which is just milquetoast sexual liberation except now there's shiny new features like the ability to endlessly play victim of your own choices and blame men every time something goes wrong or (gasp) they don't give you exactly what you thought yourself entitled to from sex.
I leftist spaces I do actually very often see a demand that people be protected or given redress for all kinds of supposed wrongs that happened to them, where they themselves were the architect of that.
It often boils down to a demand for a semi-fascist police state, where companies are supposed to spy on and police their customers, and governments then do the rest of the spying and policing.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm increasingly of the opinion that "full adulthood" isn't something that should happen automatically but something that should instead be available to everyone and needs to be actively sought out.
My wife would almost certainly prefer to not have the right to do plenty of things she technically has the right to do. She knows she is vulnerable to scams and would prefer to not be able to enter contracts on her own, except in some limited capacity like buying groceries.
I don't think she is alone. I think a shitton of people would like to have more limited "rights", like not being able to receive phone calls from anyone, enter into contracts over the phone, only being able to enter into contracts over the internet with third-party white-listed vendors, etc.
It kind of works a bit like this with some investments and bank services, you can't just stumble into making some types of transactions.
I'm not sure this extends to sexual or romantic stuff but it follows the same principle.
In tribal societies, boys sometimes have to complete some dangerous ordeal in order to be considered men. What would the equivalent be for girls?
Menstruation.
More options
Context Copy link
In hard patriarchal societies like ancient Greece or modern India, there isn't one because women are never considered full adults. In soft patriarchal societies like ancient Rome or medieval Europe, when her first husband dies - the only women who enjoyed what men would consider full adult freedom were widows.
That said, peasant class women in premodern societies enjoyed far more rights de facto than they were supposed to do de jure because their work (i.e. textiles) was just as essential as men's.
More options
Context Copy link
The wedding night and their first childbirth?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is missing a very critical aspect of this situation: she probably got what she wanted out of the investment and wouldn't have "gone crying for redress and sympathy" absent another necessary ingredient. Others saw an opportunity to exploit her experience for their own gain, and pushed her to "reinterpret" the situation to advance their agendas. She and the men directly involved are not the only degenerates in this story.
What do you mean?
I'm guessing he means that she was strongly encouraged to reinterpret what happened as rape by the feminist culture in order to provide yet another high profile victim and a set of high profile perpetrators to the ongoing feminist machine.
Probably not feminist per se--more likely this was just her sorority giving her the choice of "having been raped" or not being a sister anymore that then led to a feeding frenzy by people desperate to be seen as defending women. EDIT: And her getting dumped on for the rape allegations being part of her punishment.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
One thing to note is that only four of the men involved are accused of sexual acts. The "Cornell 7" is certainly a more attention-grabbing headline than the "Cornell 4" I suppose.
Ironically the frat president uninviting her from the Halloween party was probably an attempt at damage control. They had nasty rumors of a drug-fueled orgy floating around involving this woman already, they would have to be insane to invite her back (for one of the wildest parties of the year) and risk it happening again. And obviously it's a lot harder to uninvite the people who live there.
Right up until the rape accusation it looked like social shaming was mostly working as intended. Everyone involved made bad decisions and were getting mildly punished for them. The woman's social life was negatively impacted and rumors were going around about the frat being rapey. The issue is that the woman exercised a unilateral option to absolve herself of blame and dump 100x the consequences on the men.
More options
Context Copy link
It hasn’t been mentioned much but the earliest published work to include the phrase “free pussy” is Valerie Solana’ anti-male SCUD Manifesto, 1967, maybe the most anti-male book ever written. Bolding the relevant parts:
Solanas’ experience with men in her life failing her developed into an ardent misandry and culminated in, of all things, a murder attempt on Andy Warhol. It’s interesting that the oldest source of this term also includes consensual gangbanging within a fraternity-like organization of men, though here she critiques them for whisking the woman into the burbs rather than dropping her for reputational reasons.
One interpretation I've read is that this phenomenon was driven just as much by the women. Hippie couples would join a commune and the women would go on to compete for the sexual attention of the commune leader. When the men objected the women would go on to complain of their "possessiveness".
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't there someone you forgot to ask?
Eh, must've been the wind.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Saddam Hussein's inspiration!
For those unfamiliar with Solanas, it's the SCUM Manifesto, with SCUM standing for "Society for Cutting Up Men".
Lmao yes you’re right. She was not a Baathist.
Honestly, I'd guess Valerie Solanas being a Baathist wouldn't even be top 5 in the strangest links between American progressive activists and third world postcolonial regimes.
If someone told be Solanas was a Baathist, I would believe them. I do not think she would have called her work of Baathist apologia the SCUD Manifesto though. From the point of a Western useful idiot, that would be a phallogocentric take on what Baathism was really about.
Imagining a feminist account of Saddam Hussein's capture which is concerned entirely with the yonic nature of the hole he was hiding in.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
She recorded a phone call with the first guy where he claims that the only reason a bunch of other guys came into the room was that the house was full, when he sent a text to the groupchat inviting them in. So at least that guy comes off as extra dickish, and he was one of the students expelled.
https://abcnews.com/US/damage-control-phone-calls-records-suggest-cornell-frat/story?id=136987960
More options
Context Copy link
What I make of it is she felt like elements of it were non-consensual but didn't want to escalate it since it would just be making a big messy deal out of it and she just wanted to put it behind her and forget about it.
But instead word got out, and it started affecting her academic and social life and now that it's already in the toilet, there isn't much to lose by escalating it.
There should be. False rape accusations cause approximately equal harm as actual violent rape. Therefore, punishments for false rape accusations (if proven beyond a reasonable doubt) should be approximately equal to punishments for violent rape (if proven beyond a reasonable doubt). The fact that they are not is precisely why she feels safe escalating this way as a petty, vindictive, uncostly form of revenge in a social battle. Legal threats like this should not be casually thrown about against innocent people.
This wouldn’t do much in general, and also for this case in particular. There’s no way to prove Jane Doe made a false accusation beyond a reasonable doubt, and this likely also holds for 99% of all rape accusations.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well, no.
I get that it's kind of a meme for angry men (hereafter referred to as "traditionalists") to state this, because men (and especially the more trad ones) don't actually understand that a good chunk of the benefit for women is that they don't have to be in control to have the sex. "Vampired billionairely across the room" is a meme for a reason- it's someone you don't want to be in control of because the symbols that you're going to have a good time with this guy are already there.
(It doesn't need to be a stable time, it just needs to be sufficiently good. Employers hire this way all the time- they have the money, but no agency outside of their employees, so it's in effect the employees that dictate the direction the employer takes. The same dynamic applies to the statistically-average woman "hiring" the statistically-average man to give the prizes of labor in exchange for that sex, in this case drugs/a party/an invitation to what was understood to be basically a sex show at said party.)
"Consent" simply doesn't work the same way for doms/men as it does for subs/women; subs/women only really have the one option of "fuck this, I'm out" (for the same reason they can't send open-ended rejections as it's still a signal that they might be open to further pursuit with suitable improvement- it has to be completely unambiguous rejection and even that doesn't work all of the time.).
Doms have a much broader array of tools simply because the mating dance has "be able to be talked into, and then it just happening" as a primary feature of the selection on the part of the sub. That is the appeal of it; if the fanfics are to be believed, the lead-up to the sex is the overwhelming majority of the sexual pleasure.
This, of course, creates some unique liabilities (disease, pregnancy, being shamed by progressives for undermining their collective sexual bargaining) that it is perfectly reasonable on the side of the
bottomwoman to believe they weren't appropriately priced in at the time. And men that don't intentionally place themselves in that situation will never really realize that (generally because it's against their nature to do so).The woman is now allowed to cry that this was rape, so she does, and the consequences after that are generally uninteresting power politics that have more to do with privilege of group actors than they do the woman herself.
I mean, thanks for acting as exhibit A for why a social conservative/traditionalist and a progressive are exactly the same, I guess? Though the irony there is that both of them treat women's sexuality as a tool and not as an end, though in truth both pretend as if they're on the side of women. (Much like classical liberalism and the sexual revolution do for men, at least when using a traditionalist/progressive lens.)
Again, something on which trads and progs agree; trads because they don't understand women, progs because they are paid a salary to intentionally misunderstand women.
The woman paid for the drugs and the party with sex; the men paid for the sex with the drugs and the party. The woman is now trying to renegotiate that contract because she doesn't think those things served as sufficient payment even though she clearly believed they were at the time (and further text messages apparently corroborate this, which is why more progressive countries, like Canada, intentionally exclude those as exculpatory evidence).
I wouldn't have guessed that. With what explanation? Was there a recent case around that?
Angry feminist regime butthurt they couldn't convict a semi-high-profile public figure for rape in a very similar case to this one. There's really no other charitable explanation other than Believe Wimminz.
Just look up Jian Ghomeshi, you'll find it pretty quick.
Ah, the case where the text messages indicated the women were co-ordinating their stories. Same case which involved a Volkswagen Beetle called the "Love Bug", which unfortunately for our brave accusers, Ghomeshi didn't actually own at the time of the events he was accused of.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Was there more than just the one guy saying that in one text?
More options
Context Copy link
Polite society has been adding epicycles to the consent-alone (solus consensus?) model of sexual ethics for decades: People under 18 cannot consent. People under the influence of drugs cannot consent. People who are subordinate in a power hierarchy cannot consent. None of these really made any sense in the solus consensus framework, but jettisoning consent as the one true guiding light of sexual ethics would open up LGBT relationships to scrutiny, and that would be considered unconsionable.
Given the reaction to the Cornell incident, I think society is finally ready to start looking for alternative ethical models. Everyone has now seen the moons of Jupiter so to speak.
"Society" is not looking for any alternative ethical model. It has the one it wants (men bad women good), it just fears to say it openly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think what you're getting at is pretty simple- they treated her like a whore, except they didn't pay her.
That's what everyone has got grasping at straws. It's a status distinction- having sex with a lady you're supposed to be cuddly afterwards and make her tea and give her breakfast the next morning and the like. But society doesn't want to acknowledge that; this was a sorority sister(and thus some sort of lower gentry background), and society doesn't want to acknowledge that that is a relevant variable to their outrage. We're supposed to be beyond status distinctions, or seeing consensual sex as gross.
Good analogy, but if I could adjust: she expected to be treated like a "fun girl" who was into having "fun" at "fun parties" and would get invited to more "fun parties," and instead got treated as a whore who was out doing community service.
Obviously, I think sex is most appropriately done between ladies and gentlemen, but even my prudish ass can understand that other modes exist in the tangled web of human sexuality. But even the Wild West has rules, and you ought to follow those rules.
More options
Context Copy link
There was no lady in the room.
There was a good-time gal. She wanted a casual acquaintance to find a 3rd to Eiffel tower her and take turns pounding her out, but not a 4th because that probably meant anal.
Maybe she hopes they guys will mess around with each other and she'll get to watch, not an uncommon fantasy.
She's unhappy that cooler heads prevail and she dis-invited from Halloween. The dis-invitation (rejection) is the proximate cause of her unhappiness but it was always going to end unhappily. You don't marry the good-time gal.
Feeling unhappy couldn't be the result of anything she did it must be because some external force (the boys) did something to her.
There was a high status woman. By prevailing morality she can't be used as a 'good time girl', not openly.
In times past she'd get the blame and have to marry someone a bit lower than her. But today, that's taboo, so we have to pretend the boys are rapey. But the gods of copybook heading are returning; treating a girl from a wealthy family that way was always banned. The difference is, in times past, she would be sent to 'help her aunt' in another state. That's how my great grandparents met. Today that part's not happening. I mean it will, slowly but surely- she's already banned from the frat parties(which exist primarily to make sure upper class women marry upper class men). But it's not yet, we have seduction charges but not the other side. History repeats, it rhymes, it does all those things at once- and cultural universals will always resurface. Yeah, she's being punished. So are they. The gods of copybook heading go nuclear on everyone.
How far back? Claudio refuses to, '...knit my soul to an approvèd wanton.' based on slander.
I'm not sure another state to help an aunt would be far enough. Are there no sororities or fraternities in this state? Two greek houses scandalized and a reputation ruined.
How are you getting here? Her behavior / actions don't sound particularly high status. Do we know she's from a 'good family'? It doesn't seem as if her roommate thinks this is high status behavior. Do we know what she was studying?
Her name leaked, none of her socials have been pulled. Based on public information, she's almost certainly from a neighborhhoood where the zillow estimate for home prices range from 1.4 to 2.4 million. In a city where the median income is $51,000.
The closest comparison, is her street reminds me of Jon Benet Ramsey's homes. Does that make her elite, no, but it rules out quite a few lower classes.
More options
Context Copy link
She was in a sorority. Definitionally, her job is to be a member of the elites.
I don't think membership in many of these institutions means what it once did. Especially at the safety school of the Ivy League.
Are there any notable TriDelt alumni from Cornell?
Not exactly waking in Elizabeth Dole's footsteps at Duke.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you are a man, there's a good chance you haven't received a lot of positive attention from people other than your mom.
I saw something on Twitter to the effect that sluts are great because they actually really like men.
There are women out there who like sex, like men, and are comfortable around them. You knew they aren't yours to keep, but they do show you a good time. Maybe you even learn a thing or two. And you get to feel valued, feel sexually desirable, feel visible. Most men have been with someone like that. I have. Looking back on my young life, I wonder what those women even saw in me.
Essentially, sluts are doing men a great service.
Treating them shabbily is in very poor taste.
It could equally be a communist plot to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluid.
The sluts are leading men as an ox goeth to the slaughter enticing squandering wealth and strength on harlots. It's a disservice. Godly young men would have removed thy way far from her.
More options
Context Copy link
Is this a reference to the dis-invitation to Halloween?
Obviously I can't speak for him, but I would say that yes, that was in poor taste.
How else would you expect fraternity leadership to react to "Things (almost) went too far that night"? I have at least some sympathy for the "let's not do that again" option there. Maybe not the best way to implement that, but certainly the easiest.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yup-yup, in an ideal world both she and her sexual partners would've gone after the frat/sor leadership trying to shame/cancel them over a consensual encounter. "Sure, you are free to punish us for doing drugs in the frat house if you want to, but what we did under the influence of them is our own business. If you don't make people shut up about that, we'll sue you for sexual harassment."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
True but if she actively wants demeaning group sex whilst proactively consenting to it, what can you do? Also 'You must act like a gentleman to best satisfy women in bed/post-bed' runs so hard against observed tendencies in mate selection.
'Satisfaction' and 'pleasure' are besides the point. It's about 'dignity' and 'status', not those other things.
The outrage is about upholding a social hierarchy, and part of that is that upper class women are supposed to be treated a certain way. Of course it can't be put in those terms, hence all the rape-that-isn't.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
ESH is a perfectly valid conclusion.
She's gross, the men are gross (seriously, consent or not, who thinks it's not gross to put your dick in the same place a dozen other guys just put their dicks?), and social shame and disgust should befall all of them regardless of criminality. But most people are lining up on Team Woman or Team Bitches Ain't Shit. And so it goes.
Billions of years of evolution, that mysterious cock shape made to scrape out the other guy's cum so yours can get a head start (or so I have been unreliably informed by half forgotten memes)
I recall this being a specific argument of the Youtuber The Jolly Heretic.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"regardless of criminality."
I generally agree that ESH, but the matter if criminality is central to the discussion, as there is a strong faction that believes a crime happened here (and wants to leverage that example into a greater debate on sexual ethics and "rape culture"). So even though these guys suck, it's still virtuous to defend them against an accusation they're innocent of. Something something most of the time you'll be defending scoundrel.
It's arguably "virtuous" to defend their right to innocence until proven guilty of criminal charges. It's not virtuous to line up on Team Dude and say they did nothing wrong because you hate the slut.
Is Atticus Finch of To Kill a Mockingbird a bad man on the basis of defending a convicted rapist? I don't remember that book on my far-Right Patriarchy reading list (/s).
Criminal conviction is a line there, maybe even one of the better ones, but hardly the only one.
I didn't say they aren't entitled to a defense.
They can be dirtbags without being guilty of criminal charges.
Given the facts of the matter up to the morning after, which I think you would agree ought to be the cut-off point, I do not think you or others can define a clear standard of behavior that would a) keep one on the correct side of the dirtbag line, and b) be even roughly compatible with the sex-positive liberalism that has ruled us all since the 60s.
The working definition of "slut" is one question. Whether this particular woman is a slut is a second question. A third question is whether we collectively are capable of object-permanence. We have been here before. Jackie's story, Mattress Girl, the Dear Colleague Letter, Believe All Women, TeamHarpies, Duke Lacrosse, the decade-plus abuse of Title IX, affirmative consent baked into state law... This isn't a conversation we could potentially have in advance, it's a conversation we as a society already had, in exhaustive detail. What the fuck are we doing here?
...I would rather this not be a tribal thing, but how is it not a tribal thing? "Woke 1 was so crazy, lol," so what is this?
Can you argue that even now, there's anything resembling a legible public consensus that group sex or gangbangs or whatever label we're applying here makes one "a dirtbag", such that these guys should have known going in how their behavior would be perceived? I'm not opposed to shaming everyone involved, hell, I'm all for it! But notably, that isn't happening, and I don't believe even now that any sort of actual standard is being set here. People are calling these guys rapists, and I see no reason to believe that they could have anticipated that label being applied to them given the choices they made. No one of any prominence is actually out there saying publicly that if you participate in a gangbang, society will collectively coordinate the ruin of your career and prospects. I think that would be a pretty good rule, but it needs to actually be a rule that people have a chance to internalize, not an ad-hoc result arrived at by lying about the particulars of a given incident!
As-is, the woman in this case appears to me to have the worst behavior, by far. She appears to have been a willing participant in the activities from beginning to end, and then tried to convert it into rape charges when she was shamed to a limited degree for her behavior. That is wildly unjust. I would prefer not to join either of the teams you mentioned, but I do not think there is a reasonable way to engage with the facts and the general social consensus without either endorsing injustice or coming down hard on this woman's behavior. If the answer is "Men need to be at permanent, severe, unilateral legal risk in all sexual encounters, and also we need to lie about this fact and its consequences forever", well, I don't think that's going to be a winning pitch going forward, but it would at least be honest, and therefore preferable to what I'm currently seeing.
At some point, some women in some situations are going to need to take an L, and the rest of us need to be okay with that.
I'm sorry to, uh, throw a wrench into a fine rant, but I'm not a sex-positive liberal so you seem to be addressing it to me on the assumption that I believe things I don't.
I mean, I guess I am a "sex-positive liberal" in a literal sense, or in the sense that a lot of behavior I consider shameful and disgusting shouldn't necessarily be illegal. But if you see me defending Jane Doe or Mattress Girl or Jackie, et al, then you have been operating on a very poor understanding of my liberalism.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Even though neither of us think it was rape, my wife and I have been quoting the Norm MacDonald meme at each other for a week: "Now this may strike some viewers as harsh, but I think everyone involved in this story should die".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's a central issue in the consent framework. Is sex behind closed doors between consenting adults ever wrong? The actual answer is yes, because consent is insufficient. But because the only way people can criticize the morality of a sexual act is by shoving it into a consent framework, you end up with convoluted, unsatisfying (to everyone!) arguments about whether the exact scenario constituted legal consent.
The men are the parties that did the greater wrong, here, and it has nothing to do with the details of her consent or non-consent. The very limited defense I have of them is that they are confused in believing that consent is the moral line, and that's what media and various bureaucracies have told them since birth; but that doesn't change that the act is well-over the actual line.
I concur.
I have been railing against the consent framework for sex for years at this point. And what is this case but yet another example of its complete failure and inability to deal with tricky cases. Lets be clear how bad this case is for the consent framework: Even if everyone involved was wearing body cams and every room was equipped with security cams, you would probably not be able to determine consent for any of the encounters beyond reasonable doubt.
Obviously since none of that is even available, the case is even trickier, and shows how consent fails so hard as a system. Consent is soft and subjective. For something as serious as rape you need a hard and objective system. If you are a trad, something as hard as marriage only. If you are a licentious inclined person something like, "entered a bedroom without force and allowed the door to be closed" works pretty well.
Consent, just never works. Or rather, it works well in all the easy cases, but EVERY system works well in the easy cases. And consent fails most often in the hard cases.
More options
Context Copy link
You understand that directly downstream of this would be an explicitly patriarchal society with realities as extreme as the removal of the franchise from women and re-institution of dowries and male-relative escorts at all times.
If we remove agency from women, we obligate ourselves to revert to treating them as a special class of chattel.
It's certainly a position you can take, but just be aware that you are.
More options
Context Copy link
If every institution from cradle to frat house in their lives has told them the line is consent, and the actual line is such a secret that even posters on The Motte shy away from saying what the line is, how is it conceivably their fault in any way? Quite literally, how could they possibly know, or indeed, how could they possibly have known that they didn't know?
Agreed. The parents of those frat bros, the university feminists running those "education" courses, the older brothers who should have been explicitly teaching the unspoken rules - all of them should be ashamed for failing those kids who apparently had no fucking idea what is actually expected of them.
At the same time, ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it; Cain was still in the wrong. Both can be true at once.
Who gets to decide what the law is? Why do you get to punish these men for breaking the law inside your head when you haven't done the work to win the fight against the people who think the law should be something else?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Fault is a tool we use to create better outcomes, by justifying legal and social punishments. Assigning fault to them allows us to channel energy into creating new norms and expectations that would otherwise be dissipated in questions of "how much ketamine can a girl snort off a guy's cock before the guy can't have sex with her."
She's at fault, too, but gotta choose your battles.
If your position is that the consent framework is bad, then neither the boys nor the girl is at fault. They are simply products of the system. The correct people to assign fault to in that scenario are the people who created, advertised, and enforced the consent framework. This is true both in a moral sense and in a "how do we create better outcomes" sense. Skewering a bunch of boys who literally could not have known to do anything else does nothing to effect the change you want because those boys have no power to change the system. To change the system, you must influence the people who actually have power, who are neither the boys nor the girl, but the horde of faceless teachers, activists, and bureaucrats who actually set the rules.
Going after the boys is just going after the weakest party in the case. Sure, it's "choosing your battles", but you're only choosing that battle because you can win it and feel good, not because winning that battle does anything.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"Tomorrow morning, is she going to wish she didn't do this?" I think is the question they should have asked themselves, and I think it was foreseeable that this would be a wise question to consider.
That's the problem with everyone involved being drunk and high... Of the two men in the initial threesome, one fell asleep and couldn't perform, and the other started vomiting. No one had the mental capacity to consider the next morning.
Right, if anything she appears to have been the most sober participant. According to the strict rules of consent beaten into me in college, she raped them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Good standard, but even in this case not good enough. She wished she didn't do it weeks later after rumors circulated around campus and she was disinvited from the Halloween party.
More options
Context Copy link
People are going to occasionally regret the most milquetoast inoffensive sexual encounters for a myriad of reasons, some of which are impossible for the other party to reasonably predict. Is it potential rape if I have sex on the third date, then learn something afterwards that makes me unwilling to pursue a further relationship?
More options
Context Copy link
Imagine that it's the night before the events in the story and you are tasked with arguing the case for "the line is the woman not having regretted last night's activities" against someone who is arguing "the line is consent". What evidence would you be able to bring to bear compared to the evidence that your debate opponent would be able to bring to bear? Remember, the debate is not what the line should be, but what the line is.
Would you be able to produce evidence that outweighs the legions of institutions who loudly proclaim consent being the line?
The line here is "don't be an idiot; the vast majority of women will regret having a train run on them, even if they say they're cool with it in the moment." If someone starts bringing in legalese about consent, you repeat. Ideally you've earned the respect of your frat brothers, and they'll listen: it's most likely they're just naive, not malicious.
Is this true, actually? At least among the subset of women willing to engage in group sex in the first place, is it safe to assume most will regret it? I would expect that the vast majority of these sorts of encounters end with all parties going their separate ways having gotten more-or-less what they wanted out of it.
I'd agree that most women would probably regret a threesome in the morning, but most women are not engaging in threesomes in thr first place. That's not the denominator we should be looking at here.
Probably yes.
I guess I'm beating a dead horse of my own at his point but everyone involved here belonged to the same small social circle on campus. Going their separate ways wasn't a realistic option. It was also unrealistic to expect that the men involved will all go on to conspire to carefully conceal the incident from all other women in the same social circle.
In my (limited) experience, men tend not to talk about their sex lives much while women seem to gossip about it constantly. I perhaps wouldn't expect the men to "conspire to carefully conceal the incident", but I also wouldn't expect them to ever bring it up in mixed company.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
At the time of the event, what was the publicly available evidence that the line was what you say it is? Imagine you're debating a sex-negative feminist whose position is "at Cornell, the line is consent and that's a bad thing -- we should change it". What would you say to convince onlookers that she's wrong and that she already has her preferred policy in place? Heck, there are plenty of people in this thread who are arguing that the current line is consent and that's a bad thing -- are they wrong about the current line being consent?
I think you are just factually wrong about what the line is. The line is consent. You can wish it was something else, but it's not. Until you change it, you (or the rest of the lynch mob) shouldn't get to enforce your desired line.
It seems to be that OP is referring to an unwritten/unstated social rule so asking for publicly available evidence probably isn't warranted here.
A rule that is both unwritten and unstated is also known as a rule that doesn't exist. OP alleged that their rule existed to such an extent that it overpowered the actual written and stated rule.
If you don't have publicly available evidence to back up your point, we have to treat you as wrong as a matter of discourse.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Foreseeable to you, the adult, worldly motte-poster. To a 20 year old raised in an environment of sex-positive, "sex is just about feeling good and nothing else" consent feminism? The girl herself seems to have thought she was doing something brave and good.
Are you sure about this? A 20-yr-old was 11 years old when the MeToo campaign started.
Sure. MeToo was about rich men raping women in dark offices after hours. They're not Harvey Weinstein. Do colleges no longer have a freshman orientation about "Consent and Accepting Trans People"? Followed by an invitation to an MLM sex-toy event?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I liked your post, but this is the issue. Is sex transactional or performative? If anything, the transactional understanding of sex made the Seven treat Doe the way they did: if sex is a way of transferring value from one participant to the other(s, in this case), then Doe is a sucker who was led around.
The way you defeat this is by treating sex as something that produces value for all participants. You don't have sex to get your boyfriend to commit, you don't have sex to get invited to the next party, you don't have sex to gain status.
Yes! Don't have sex for a reason, have it for the sake of it. You don't bring a homemade frozen lasagna to a new mother because you want her to owe you a favor or because you want others to speak well of you or because it's your duty as another woman. You do it because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside. If it doesn't - you don't have to bake anything, she can DoorDash whatever she wants.
High-quality rebuttal.
Neither - it is relational. Sex exists in a relationship between two parties, much like a fishing trip exists in a relationship between two buddies. This means that the rules around sex are in fact reifying the rules of the relationship. Obviously the sex, like the fishing trip, is fun; but you're expected to bring adequate beer, or take turns doing so, not scare the fish, be suitably congratulatory and never salty if your buddy gets the bigger fish (even if he does it every time!), etc. And that bears out an underlying relationship of mutual respect and consideration. For sex, I of course think that the most appropriate relationship is a loving and committed one, but I understand that it doesn't have to be, and that it's conceivable that the underlying relationship the woman wanted to have was "you bring the drugs, I bring my body, we all have a good time and are nice to each other after." Violating that relationship is the cause for this anger, as a kind of disrespect.
I disagree, and would say that "warm fuzzy feelings" are a bad motivation for such things. Obviously the bulk of my interactions with my family are warm and fuzzy, and I do like said feelings, but my most significant obligations come from times when I am NOT feeling warm and fuzzy, e.g. when I am arguing with my wife or the kid is screaming and I'm bone-tired, and despite all of that I need to do what it takes to restore the harmony of the household. Doing things in warm and fuzzy mode is great, but the most important characteristic of a ship is how it holds up in a storm. No, the motivation should be that you feel a personal loyalty to the relationship you are trying to preserve and that you understand that your actions are important to that relationship - this is the durable motivation in such a case.
Just like "type 1" and "type 2" fun, can fuzzy feelings be "type 1" and "type 2" as well?
All right, that's fair. I'll chalk this up to "different ways of expressing the same thing" if that's more what you mean.
More options
Context Copy link
I'd say sex itself can be that way, too.
Progressives claim that all type 2 sex is rape, because that is exactly how a maximally selfish woman acts in a relationship (she doesn't give a damn about pleasing her husband, or even if she does, she can't even understand that women's desires aren't the only ones that matter).
Traditionalists claim that type 2 sex is the only kind there is, because that is how a maximally selfish man acts in a relationship (he doesn't give a damn about pleasing his wife, or even if he does, he can't even understand that women can be pleased by sex).
Both are in perfect agreement that relationships do not involve love or commitment of any kind- it's purely a business transaction, sex-as-a-service. Which is why the edicts they issue, when either have the power to do so (currently, this is women), are always such destructive crap; they make it illegal to have a functioning relationship because they don't understand what that looks like, so they try to substitute for it the best they can with concepts like "consent".
It's all so tiresome. A good chunk of men complaining about this are only doing it because they just want to replace destructive female behavior with destructive male behavior without any recognition of why they failed so horribly the last time.
What does type 2 sex look like? I can kinda pretend to understand it as a type 2 activity within the larger context of a relationship, but sex that isn't pure pleasure in the moment, but that you can't wait to repeat sounds very kinky to me.
Type 2 activities are those that take some amount of effort to do and aren't actually pleasant in the moment, and less 'can't wait to repeat' and more 'this is kind of a drag, but it's pleasing to the other person/that's just how they function, so here we go again'.
Inherent narcissism does the rest- progs believe men simply don't get to require a woman do anything she doesn't want to, and trads are men who tend to forget to set up the conditions for sex to qualify as type 1 for his wife (or that women would even want sex in the first place).
We have a disagreement there. I've always considered type 2 to be stuff that you enjoy, but not right when it's happening. Like running a marathon. People don't usually run forty kilometers to please another person.
I mean, they do have sex to please other people; plenty of documented cases of that.
But that's why I consider it to not really be that unpleasant. Sure, maybe I'd rather be doing something else, but barring any other good ideas as to what else to do on a Friday night I might as well do the thing.
What did it cost, time and a bit of physical discomfort? (Sounds like work that I'm doing because I'm after the reward rather than because I enjoy the work, but then again, that's Type 2 vs. Type 1 in the sense of 'it would be nice to see from the summit' vs. 'hiking is fun enough on its own'.)
I grant that I'm not really the central example of how I "have" fun, but maybe there's a bit of anhedonia running in the background I'm taking advantage of that other people don't really experience. Or maybe I understand it better if we start from the assumption that what actually counts is some deep-seated excuse to not have to be in the driver's seat (or maybe compensate for being somewhat empty inside, or where most of my favorite things to do being inherently single-player with little room for other interaction requiring seeking activities I don't actually like on their own) as far as the experience goes, which from what I can gather is also more of a woman thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's fair to say that sex is almost never transactional for men whereas for the average woman it's more the norm and not the exception.
I wonder how much of this is a generational divide rather than a gender divide. I could imagine young women mostly having a nontransactional approach to sex similar to men, with their views becoming more transactional over time through the combination of their ticking biological clock and decreasing libido. The formal rules are written by older women with the implicit goal of policing/limiting competition from younger women. While the informal rules that actually govern college sexual life are written by sorority "fun girls" and the hot frat guys they want to find excuses to have sex with.
It's probably no coincidence that the three groups of women with the general reputation of being down for performative/desire sex are young women (so not yet interested in long-term commitment), recently divorced women (done with the whole concept of long-term commitment, at least for the time being) and cougars (who basically left the mating/relationship marketplace altogether).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
As long as it's not explicitly transactional, we'll continue to have cases like this one.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It seems to me that these statements indicate that you are buying into the traditional notions that see men as defilers.
I mean, if a man is intoxicated and a woman (not his girlfriend or wife) performs oral sex on him, is it so outrageous to see the man as having been defiled?
To be clear, I don't have a huge problem with the "men as defilers" double standard, my bigger issue is what could be called the meta-double-standard. Double-standards which are perceived as favoring men over women are constantly attacked in the mainstream; the reverse is not true.
ETA:
I think this is pretty reasonable. It's alarming when the criminal justice system is turned into an instrument of mass hysterics and weaponized against people who belong to disfavored groups. That seems to be what's happening here.
More options
Context Copy link
How confident are you that the facts of the case support your thesis?
Reliable information is obviously difficult to get right now, but one narrative I've seen, supposedly supported by texts between the girl and one of the main boys involved, is that in the immediate aftermath, all parties involved were perfectly content with the situation, and it was only when the girl's sorority sisters heard about what happened and slut-shamed her that she experienced negative effects (including the disinviting from the Halloween party, done at the request of the sisters). In this telling, it's very much a "is there anyone you forgot to ask" situation, where third parties are inserting themselves into something that they have no business inserting themselves into.
I'm personally skeptical that the frat bros acted like the cartoon villains you describe because my experience with UMC Gen Z men is that they are respectful of women to a fault, and the descriptions of their behavior in the initial police report seem to support that these particular Gen Z men are no different. It seems more like the feminist mob having an idea of what an evil frat bro would do and ascribing that behavior to the boys in this case.
The implication behind this statement is that there ought to be consequences for sex beyond what is negotiated up front. If you asked the collective of women raging at these men what those consequences should be, what would they say? Would they agree with each other? Could they even bear to say it out loud?
Well sorry but no. A queen bee who's heading a sorority presumably with high status on campus has an evident interest in preventing that sorority from gaining the reputation of being associated with crazy sluts.
The fact that third parties have an interest in meddling doesn't make it not "is there anyone you forgot to ask". Obviously, if they're meddling, they have an interest. This is true of the original meme too.
The point of "is there anyone you forgot to ask" is that they have no inherent right to insert themselves.
We live in a society with a culture, and that means social norms. If you violate those social norms, then people have every right to react with behavior that is legally allowed, like gossiping, stating their disapproval, convincing people with power to apply that power to punish the people involved, protect their own reputation by disassociating with the person breaking the norms, etc.
You can blame 'meddlers' all you want, but this is all just human nature and it won't go away. You can at most change how people react to social norm violations and what things they see as a violation.
Jane Doe seemed to not be aware of this and be under the impression that the virtual cage she was in was entirely of her own making, and she could simply escape it by not believing in it. She was wrong and learned a lesson. Unfortunately, it seems that she is trying to fix her situation by hurting other people.
More options
Context Copy link
Isn't the whole point of the existence of sororities to insert themselves in situations such as this?
No? Sororities can police what their own members do but they have no right to generate the rape accusation that would not have existed but for their involvement.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Which is an odd thing to attempt, considering sororities have that reputation by default.
And tri-Delt in particular does.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I haven't been following this too closely, but I feel like I'm misunderstanding something here. In what way did she "pay" for the sex other than regretting it later? Are you counting not getting invited back to the frat as "paying" for it? If so, that's like 5 orders of magnitude less than the risk men take for having casual sex with a stranger.
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t think the boys turned her into a crazy slut. I think she was a crazy slut. And the boys were fucking cads as well. Both sides suck. But the woman has agency.
There are purportedly videos of her, now that her name and socials have leaked, showing that she looked pretty jacked for a woman. One of the fun speculations I've heard is that she was on T supplements for athletic/training reasons, and that's why she had a sex drive to fuck multiple frat boys into dry-heaving catatonia.
T supplements would indeed explain a lot.
Eyeballing the video (that is allegedly of her that @Quantumfreakonomics posted), I don't see a whole lot of the androgenizing effects of the special sports supplements most associated with deviant sexual interests. Namely, Tren and Dbol. That level of strength is also totally achievable according to my eyeball scales. Note that those are miscolored lb plates, not Olympic-style kg plates. So, a 365 lb deadlift. From the relative scale, she looks like someone who could make the 76 kg (168 lb) weight class, which would be an advanced deadlift, but not elite or requiring special supplements.
Edit: Studying the video more carefully. Based on the plate movement and bar bend, I think those might even be extra-wide bumper plates, in which case it's the [bar + (45 x 2 + 35 + 10) x 2 = 315], not [bar + (45 x 2 + 35 x 2) x 2 = 365]. Also, the real crime here is not loading 315 as 3pl8s-lamo, truly deranged.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Curious do you have a link
Allegedly this is her
Nice, she lifts more than me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sorry. I didn't save anything and I don't know how to slip past search enslopification anymore. If I stumble across it again, I'll share.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link