UVA Rape Culture

[Renaissance]

The Rolling Stones wrote a note today apologizing for the story, saying they received 'new information' that made them question Jackie's account. Either that or some powerful people didn't like such pathology exposed.

_http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/a-note-to-our-readers-20141205#ixzz3L4BBFMaA

A Note to Our Readers

To Our Readers:

Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled "A Rape on Campus" by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university's failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school's troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations.

Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie's story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone's editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie's credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie's account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn't confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence.

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

Will Dana
Managing Editor

 

[Beau]

Discrepancies in Jackie's account? What did they expect, the accused to come right out and say they did indeed gang rape her just like she said? There's still a rape culture in fraternities even if this story has a few holes in it. Even Rolling Stone posted a follow-up article with nothing but write-ins from women who have dealt with sexual assault at UVA. So I'm going with the line that someone powerful is telling RS to lay off.

 

[lainey]

Wow, that's just another kick in the teeth for Jackie. Regardless of whether all the facts add up (and I would be surprised if a victim of a horrific trauma got every little detail right) there is clear evidence of a culture of sexual assault and rape apology/cover up at UVA. That's what they should focus on and not the credibility of the witness. Disappointed.

 

[Meg]

The brain does all sorts of things to deal with trauma. Any discrepancies might be accounted for due to the psychological trauma of being raped.

The Rolling Stones wrote a note today apologizing for the story, saying they received 'new information' that made them question Jackie's account. Either that or some powerful people didn't like such pathology exposed.

_http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/a-note-to-our-readers-20141205#ixzz3L4BBFMaA

A Note to Our Readers

To Our Readers:

Last month, Rolling Stone published a story titled "A Rape on Campus" by Sabrina Rubin Erdely, which described a brutal gang rape of a woman named Jackie at a University of Virginia fraternity house; the university's failure to respond to this alleged assault – and the school's troubling history of indifference to many other instances of alleged sexual assaults. The story generated worldwide headlines and much soul-searching at UVA. University president Teresa Sullivan promised a full investigation and also to examine the way the school responds to sexual assault allegations.

Because of the sensitive nature of Jackie's story, we decided to honor her request not to contact the man she claimed orchestrated the attack on her nor any of the men she claimed participated in the attack for fear of retaliation against her. In the months Erdely spent reporting the story, Jackie neither said nor did anything that made Erdely, or Rolling Stone's editors and fact-checkers, question Jackie's credibility. Her friends and rape activists on campus strongly supported Jackie's account. She had spoken of the assault in campus forums. We reached out to both the local branch and the national leadership of the fraternity where Jackie said she was attacked. They responded that they couldn't confirm or deny her story but had concerns about the evidence.

In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie's account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.

Will Dana
Managing Editor

Sounds like damage control. What scumbags - blaming the victim in such a subtle way, osit.

 

[Gwenllian]

The brain does all sorts of things to deal with trauma. Any discrepancies might be accounted for due to the psychological trauma of being raped.
...
Sounds like damage control. What scumbags - blaming the victim in such a subtle way, osit.

Exactly.
Here are the questions that SOTT asked:

Comment: Does this new information prove that 'Jackie' was not raped and the assaulters are innocent? Are we supposed to believe that Rolling Stone publishes articles without verifying the accuracy of the details? Are we expected to believe that the powerful fraternity will simply allow the rapist to confess? Why didn't Rolling Stone wait to complete its interview with the assaulter(s) and find out the truth before apologizing?

http://www.sott.net/article/289840-Sick-world-Rolling-Stone-apologizes-for-telling-the-truth-in-University-of-Virginia-rape-story

 

[Wu Wei Wu]

Discrepancies in Jackie's account? What did they expect, the accused to come right out and say they did indeed gang rape her just like she said? There's still a rape culture in fraternities even if this story has a few holes in it. Even Rolling Stone posted a follow-up article with nothing but write-ins from women who have dealt with sexual assault at UVA. So I'm going with the line that someone powerful is telling RS to lay off.

I'll be the devil's advocate and report on the many potential problems with the story, and reasons why it should be suspect. I'll be honest, I read the whole thing and I suspect that much of it is fake, fabrication, or gratuitous embellishment. Rolling stone probably removed it because they realized that shortly after.

Lets start with a character examination, two of them. One of the author. Keep in mind the author had already framed the story before she discovered the UVA case. She wasn't looking for a story, any story at a campus, any campus. She was looking for an inflammatory rape story and after going past Harvard and a few other high status Universities, she found UVa. This doesn't mean her work will be wrong, but it does mean it should be questioned. After all, she went out to look for a story of necessary fire. Who's to say she wouldn't fan the flames if she had to?

Second, let's talk about Jackie, and Jackie's gang rape. That's a straight up joke. I used to work as a bouncer, and you see some bad stuff with bad people. But even then, human nature comes to the fore. Generally people are lazy, men look for the quick fix, and nobody inflicts pain on themselves if they can avoid it.

Here's the gang rape scenario. High status fraternity male who she likes, takes her somewhere private. They both know why they're going somewhere quiet. Man apparently throws a curveball and in the dark, with 6 or so other men, proceeds to hold her down, in the process shattering glass on the floor. Then they apparently take turns raping her for 3 hours, or so?

This is unbelievable on its face. Firstly, the guys would have to be very foolish to try and rape in the glass. Even the worst people I've met in my life have been characterized by some intelligence. It's also immensely unattractive to risk getting stabbed with glass as one has sex. That's not cool, it's not in line with masculine nature. Men don't seek self inflicted pain during sex. Second, the time. Let's be plain, how long did it take for each of these guys to get off? 20 minutes apiece is about the number when your break it down. Now is it likely that 7 high status fraternity guys would hold down a girl for 3 hours and copulate that long? Are we to assume that these men are so dysfunctional they need 20 minutes to get off each? That's ridiculous.

Furthermore Jackie is openly partisan and politically active in reducing sexual assaults. Many women in similar positions across universities have been caught in rape scandals before where it later comes out they faked the whole thing. This is an increasing and unfortunate new trend in the American and Canadian university environment. We don't know if Jackie is a part, maybe her story is real. But I would not believe it personally. Everything I know about male sexuality says that men would not act that way. If they wanted to rape her, there are betters ways to do it. The way described is not in line with male tendencies or natures, which we are more apt to see in this inebriated university environment.

I'd bet 70/30 that Jackie has largely fabricated the story. And that's scary, because she probably sincerely believes in what she's doing. We can't be sure for ourselves though, so we should hold judgement. This could all be a ploy to further a specific political agenda. Never let a crisis go to waste, and all that. I'm on guard and vigilant, waiting to see where the feds take this.

 

[Josi]

Wow, Wu Wei Wu,

I find your comments to be very disturbing and very offensive! Sounds like the typical attitudes of a ponerized society.

Discrepancies in Jackie's account? What did they expect, the accused to come right out and say they did indeed gang rape her just like she said? There's still a rape culture in fraternities even if this story has a few holes in it. Even Rolling Stone posted a follow-up article with nothing but write-ins from women who have dealt with sexual assault at UVA. So I'm going with the line that someone powerful is telling RS to lay off.

I totally agree with Heimdallr here. Rolling Stone would never get verification from the fraternities in a million years.

I'll be the devil's advocate and report on the many potential problems with the story, and reasons why it should be suspect. I'll be honest, I read the whole thing and I suspect that much of it is fake, fabrication, or gratuitous embellishment. Rolling stone probably removed it because they realized that shortly after.

Lets start with a character examination, two of them. One of the author. Keep in mind the author had already framed the story before she discovered the UVA case. She wasn't looking for a story, any story at a campus, any campus. She was looking for an inflammatory rape story and after going past Harvard and a few other high status Universities, she found UVa. This doesn't mean her work will be wrong, but it does mean it should be questioned. After all, she went out to look for a story of necessary fire. Who's to say she wouldn't fan the flames if she had to?

Second, let's talk about Jackie, and Jackie's gang rape. That's a straight up joke. I used to work as a bouncer, and you see some bad stuff with bad people. But even then, human nature comes to the fore. Generally people are lazy, men look for the quick fix, and nobody inflicts pain on themselves if they can avoid it.

Here's the gang rape scenario. High status fraternity male who she likes, takes her somewhere private. They both know why they're going somewhere quiet. Man apparently throws a curveball and in the dark, with 6 or so other men, proceeds to hold her down, in the process shattering glass on the floor. Then they apparently take turns raping her for 3 hours, or so?

A joke???? A little blaming the victim here. She is nineteen, naive, likes him, and unfortunately thinks she can trust him. Just because she agrees to go somewhere private does not mean she intends to consent to sex. Maybe she would have, maybe she wouldn't. We definitely know what his intentions were - GANG RAPE.

This is unbelievable on its face. Firstly, the guys would have to be very foolish to try and rape in the glass. Even the worst people I've met in my life have been characterized by some intelligence. It's also immensely unattractive to risk getting stabbed with glass as one has sex. That's not cool, it's not in line with masculine nature. Men don't seek self inflicted pain during sex. Second, the time. Let's be plain, how long did it take for each of these guys to get off? 20 minutes apiece is about the number when your break it down. Now is it likely that 7 high status fraternity guys would hold down a girl for 3 hours and copulate that long? Are we to assume that these men are so dysfunctional they need 20 minutes to get off each? That's ridiculous.

Maybe 3 hours is not accurate. Maybe it is. 30 minutes to a victim could feel like forever. Since you did read the whole article - do you recall the part about one guy using a beer bottle? How long might that of been?

Furthermore Jackie is openly partisan and politically active in reducing sexual assaults. Many women in similar positions across universities have been caught in rape scandals before where it later comes out they faked the whole thing. This is an increasing and unfortunate new trend in the American and Canadian university environment. We don't know if Jackie is a part, maybe her story is real. But I would not believe it personally. Everything I know about male sexuality says that men would not act that way. If they wanted to rape her, there are betters ways to do it. The way described is not in line with male tendencies or natures, which we are more apt to see in this inebriated university environment.

Many women who have had such an experience as Jackie do become active in reducing sexual assaults, and bring awareness. Thank goodness they do, rather then remain silent like the universities and perps would like them to remain. Statistically false rape claims are only 8% of reported cases. Are you saying rape / gang rape is normal male sexuality?

I'd bet 70/30 that Jackie has largely fabricated the story. And that's scary, because she probably sincerely believes in what she's doing. We can't be sure for ourselves though, so we should hold judgement. This could all be a ploy to further a specific political agenda. Never let a crisis go to waste, and all that. I'm on guard and vigilant, waiting to see where the feds take this.

Even if her story is partially true, that is scary! "Specific political agenda", what is that? You trust the feds to take this somewhere if there is any merit? We see time and time again - nowhere.

 

[Wu Wei Wu]

Wow, Wu Wei Wu,

I find your comments to be very disturbing and very offensive! Sounds like the typical attitudes of a ponerized society.

Hi Rhiannon, I'll respond in good faith. I too think it is disturbing to consider that the piece might be a fabrication. That's why I went over it carefully. But consider, what if it is largely a fabrication? I went through this thread and I saw no one else raising the thought. Based on my knowledge and experience in dealing with people, good and bad, the whole scenario seems very unlikely. The Rolling Stone piece vindicates this. That was a nice way of saying 'we can't trust the source'. It is very unusual to see this behavior, especially towards a rape case. To disregard a potential rape victim as untrustworthy, publicly, points to very serious discrepancies indeed.

Unfortunately, our society is indeed ponerized. It is corrupted, and dog eat dog. Those of us on this forum want to fight against this trend, but we can't lose sight of those who would seek to deceive us. This may be one such deception. I tried my best to analyze it objectively, and this was the conclusion I came to. I encourage you to re-read with an critical eye and much skepticism, you too may change your mind.

A joke???? A little blaming the victim here. She is nineteen, naive, likes him, and unfortunately thinks she can trust him. Just because she agrees to go somewhere private does not mean she intends to consent to sex. Maybe she would have, maybe she wouldn't. We definitely know what his intentions were - GANG RAPE.

Our only source of his intentions was the source, which is itself questionable. As for victim-blaming, this kind of behavior at parties is very common among the millennial generation, my generation. While explicit consent is never guaranteed, in such an environment the connotations are clear. There is a danger, as the girl is the damsel archetype, to project qualities onto her that may not apply. Sure, she may have been totally naive and innocent. Or she may have had the very explicit desire for sex herself.

Either way it doesn't matter, because her story is very, very suspicious. It raised many red flags.

Maybe 3 hours is not accurate. Maybe it is. 30 minutes to a victim could feel like forever. Since you did read the whole article - do you recall the part about one guy using a beer bottle? How long might that of been?

I agree, we can count on the victim in a traumatic scenario for an accurate sense of time, and yet the source gave a clear length of time, so somehow 'Jackie' knows. This was a flag for me. She could have known by checking the clock after, but still, 3 hours is a very specific claim.

The Beer Bottle scenario was also totally unrealistic. Who does that? Nobody. You derive no pleasure from that, there is no incentive for it. The possibility of torture is there, but it's not realistic to expect a group of horny, inebriated guys play with a bottle. Major red flag. Men are not sadistic animals desiring only the suffering of others. They act for their happiness, usually derived from pleasure. Even if some of these guys were psychopaths, it doesn't explain why the rest of them would tolerate torture. Thorough ponerization within a week? The Anthro kid was specifically not even part of the frat yet, if you recall the comments about him having to do it because 'everybody else had'.

Many women who have had such an experience as Jackie do become active in reducing sexual assaults, and bring awareness. Thank goodness they do, rather then remain silent like the universities and perps would like them to remain. Statistically false rape claims are only 8% of reported cases. Are you saying rape / gang rape is normal male sexuality?

Of course, more awareness is better. But such activist groups generally serve other ideologies as well: Post-modernism, feminism, and Marxism are the most common. Its surprising how partisan these institutions really are. It would be like having a campus institution for reporting fraud, yet being openly Neocon or Neoliberal. Sure, they provide a great service, but you can't help but be suspicious of who they are and what they do. Their partisan nature warrants greater scrutiny.

As for the 8% case, I think that claim cannot be substantiated. You are welcome to report your source, but I bet if we break down the study in question you'll find something very different. One reason I am so suspicious of this entire scene is everything is so twisted, definition wise, and the studies are often rotten.

As for Gang rape, that is the most anti-male sexuality imaginable. Generally men don't like to share. Sexual relations are either intimate, or in most ponerized cases property relations. There are few men who want to share with either category. Psychopaths, with their lack of conscience, do so, but you'll find few people in the general population who do that. I cringe at the thought. It's disgusting.

Even if her story is partially true, that is scary! "Specific political agenda", what is that? You trust the feds to take this somewhere if there is any merit? We see time and time again - nowhere.

I agree. The claims should be taken seriously, and because of their severity they should be awarded greater scrutiny. It is my caution that calls me to this line of thought, that and a field of red flags.

It's not the feds will take it anywhere towards solving a problem. That's not what they do. Their the feds, one of the great tentacles of the ponerized world. What they'll do act to ensure more laws, more restriction, more domination, more control. Ponerization, I've seen, works on every front and all at once. It's goal is neverending, always increasing, irrational domination and control. It hungers for it. I suspect ponerization will continue to push this agenda to castrate a whole generation of young men, and turn them into "the beautiful ones", or something along the lines of Japan's Herbivores but worse. This is my suspicion. I have a had time believing that the mass deluding of successive generations, mine worst of all, to the point where they've lost touch with their own nature is an accident.

Regardless, I hope my post proved informative. I am cautious and skeptical because I so desire the truth, and there is no way to get it but with scrutiny, measured disbelief, and a passionate pursuit of multiple paths of inquiry.

 

[mkrnhr]

Whether this particular story is reported accurately or not, the ponerisation to the point of the normalization of rape culture not only exists, but the natural consequence of the social experiment that is "modern" culture. Some fraternities can be the best nest for extreme ponerisation because they form closed societies bound by secrecy, with a constant supplement of experiences that destroy individuality and psychic health. For example, hazings, even the "soft" ones, are intended to break down dignity and self respect in a way that drives the individual to become a perfect authoritarian follower. Hormonal and neuro-chemical imbalances, brain washing, and the dissolution of individuality (like in "the crowd" by G. Le Bon, only more concentrated and with more hysteria) with its direct consequence that is the death of morality, can be channelized into such criminal extremities.

Rape is not about having pleasure, it's about inflicting pain and to humiliate the victim. There are many articles on SOTT about the phenomenon of group rape in India for instance. It's not a natural thing to do for a normal, caring human being, but in some cases of social ponerisation, it becomes a reality.

Here is an article by Chris Hedge about how the ponerised culture invaded compuses and the academia:
http://www.sott.net/article/248909-Academic-Authoritarians-The-Perversion-of-Scholarship

 

[Gwenllian]

Hi Wu Wei Wu,

It seems to me that you have a rather fixed idea of men and their (sexual and ponerised) behaviour.
I don't know whether you have read the article about pedophile rings, but if I remember correctly children are hunted down, tortured, raped and murdered by groups of men. Gang rape is a given and it promotes psychopathic and very cruel acts, because men probably egg on one another or use some other sort of coercion.

http://www.sott.net/article/244380-Beyond-the-Dutroux-Affair-The-reality-of-protected-child-abuse-and-snuff-networks-in-a-world-ruled-by-psychopaths.

There are (young) men that masturbate together and as far as pain is concerned how about these men that use asphyxiation to gain maximum pleasure while climaxing?
May I remind you of Bill Clinton and what he did with his cigar? Raping women with an object is not much of a stretch and it may be the ultimate way to dehumanise and humiliate the victim in the extreme.
If one considers children, women and non-psychopathic men to be subhuman and unworthy, well then, anything goes.

So, how can you assess whether this article is a lie or not when you have such preconceived ideas about men (and women)?

 

[Approaching Infinity]

The Beer Bottle scenario was also totally unrealistic. Who does that? Nobody.

Gotta say it, WWW: you really come across as hopelessly naive in your views of what is or is not "unrealistic" sexual behavior.

You derive no pleasure from that, there is no incentive for it.

You're projecting what you think of as normal sexual behavior and desires onto people who have totally different mindset. I'd really recommend you read Cleckley's Caricature of Love. And some Dabrowski.

As for Gang rape, that is the most anti-male sexuality imaginable. Generally men don't like to share. Sexual relations are either intimate, or in most ponerized cases property relations. There are few men who want to share with either category. Psychopaths, with their lack of conscience, do so, but you'll find few people in the general population who do that. I cringe at the thought. It's disgusting.

Exactly. It's disgusting. Which may be the reason you are going through such mental gymnastics to rationalize why such things are actually much more common than you'll allow yourself to accept.

 

[CNS]

Wu Wei Wu, you say that you have knowledge of male sexuality, but rape and sex are very different things. Rape is not a sexual act, but an act of violence. It is a way of claiming control, or one's will, upon the victim by the aggressor. It is a way of playing out anger, possibly even hatred (towards women, gay men, children, etc), and dehumanizing, in a way that the attacker is able to claim dominance. In groups, men tend to act out in a collective will, and they have to 'perform' in order to retain their masculinity.

Let's look at an interview with Dr David Lisak, an expert in sexual assault. He even proposes that groups do premeditate these attacks some times.

Q.
Is premeditation often part of a sexual attack that involves a group?

A.
Yes, it is. It is not to say that they don’t occur opportunistically. It’s not that every time there is one, a group of men have met at 6 p.m. and said “We are going to go gang-rape someone,” but that does happen. If all the ingredients mix together, say men find themselves at a fraternity party, in the U.S., where there is a young freshman woman new to campus and new to alcohol who is unconscious, these men see an opportunity.

It’s the last ingredient in the gang rape about to happen, simply that the opportunity is there.

These rapist are predators, plain and simple. Just like predators in the wild, they prey on the weakest of the herd. In the RS article, the author is at one point walking Rugby Row with some students who confide that the frat boys prefer their 'dates' to be more naive and younger (possibly virgins). That sounds like the 'thrill of the hunt' to me.

As far as bottles, 'sharing', and and any other part of the group's mentality, again, rape - and gang rape - is assault, violence, and an attack...not just some sleazy way to illicit sexual gratification. As Dr Lisak says,

I think sometimes the sexual element clouds our understanding of what rape is. Fundamentally, it is targeting a group of people they hold hate for.

Another good article is by a sociologist named Elaine Replogle in which she discusses the psychology of the gang rape, groups in general, and an experience she had that was traumatic as a young woman, that was found to be 'funny' by a group. Groups are interesting because people act so much differently amongst masses than they would individually. This can be a good thing, or in so many cases, due to evil motivations or misplaced anger, can be very bad. It seems to increase the level of good or bad an individual would do exponentially.

FWIW, Wu Wei Wu, this study of abnormal human sexuality and violence towards women in general, cannot be found in most text books (I am not implying that that is your only source of information). This stuff is buried; truth and evidence is hard to find. Often it is her word against his. And with a male dominated society, it is no wonder these claims are scrutinized and rarely believed. I have to ask myself one question though: would I be able to lie to the general public that some man raped me, knowing full well that every single humiliating detail of my private life would be picked over with a fine-toothed comb, and displayed for the whole world to see? When I answer an affirmative "no" to that question, it certainly gives me new perspective as to whether or not these women are giving false claim.

 

[Josi]

FWIW- As for the statistic of 8% false allegations, that may even be a little high.

Here is just one example that can be found:
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

FBI statistics

FBI reports from 1996 consistently put the number of "unfounded" rape accusations around 8%. In contrast, the average rate of unfounded reports for "Index crimes" tracked by the FBI is 2%.[15]

However, "unfounded" is not synonymous with false allegation. Bruce Gross of the Forensic Examiner says that:

This statistic is almost meaningless, as many of the jurisdictions from which the FBI collects data on crime use different definitions of, or criteria for, "unfounded." That is, a report of rape might be classified as unfounded (rather than as forcible rape) if the alleged victim did not try to fight off the suspect, if the alleged perpetrator did not use physical force or a weapon of some sort, if the alleged victim did not sustain any physical injuries, or if the alleged victim and the accused had a prior sexual relationship. Similarly, a report might be deemed unfounded if there is no physical evidence or too many inconsistencies between the accuser's statement and what evidence does exist. As such, although some unfounded cases of rape may be false or fabricated, not all unfounded cases are false.[3]

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Wu Wei Wu, you say that you have knowledge of male sexuality, but rape and sex are very different things. Rape is not a sexual act, but an act of violence.

Exactly! Thank you, CNS, for stating it so clearly.

 

[Wu Wei Wu]

Whew! We got a firestorm here, and I appear alone in my skepticism. Worry not, I will respond to the best of my ability in good faith, and bring you up to speed in further research I have done on the subject. I will lay out my discoveries before I respond to each comment. Suffice to say my instincts have been vindicated.

Let's first approach the "Note to Our Readers" by Rolling Stone. See here: _http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/a-note-to-our-readers-20141205#ixzz3L4BBFMaA
This piece was actually a response to a series of pieces by the Washington Post demonstrating the falsity of Jackie's claims. See here: _http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-fraternity-to-rebut-claims-of-gang-rape-in-rolling-stone/2014/12/05/5fa5f7d2-7c91-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html
_http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-rolling-stone-failed-in-its-story-of-alleged-rape-at-the-university-of-virginia/2014/12/05/169764a0-7cae-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html
_http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/06/libel-law-and-the-rolling-stone-uva-alleged-gang-rape-story/

To call these reports damning is an understatement. Jackie's story is full of holes. Both the University and the Fraternity are fighting back, hence the talk of potential defamation charges.

Here are some of the holes in Jackie's story. First of all, the night of the rape, September 28th, has the fraternity Phi Kappa Psi, reporting no events and no parties. Seeing as the fraternity is working with the police, this isn't a statement they make lightly.

Second, one of the studants who came to Jackie's aid the night of the alleged attack comments how Jackie did indeed look 'visibly shaken' but did not appear 'physically injured'. This is a huge break in the story, which was quite violent and graphic. Jackie said "she had been forced to have oral sex with a group of men", but when her friends offered to get her help she said she just wanted to return to the dorm. Second break.

Third:

The friends said that details of the attack have changed over time and that they have not been able to verify key points in recent days. For example, an alleged attacker that Jackie identified to them for the first time this week — a junior in 2012 who worked with her as a university lifeguard — was actually the name of a student who belongs to a different fraternity, and no one by that name has been a member of Phi Kappa Psi.

Keep in mind that the fraternity has already suffered reprisal and suspension for what may be a total fabrication. So someone has already suffered because of this piece, via media trial. People read that piece and get angry, and angry people are a lynch mob, evidence or no. I would not have wanted to be in that fraternity when this piece came out. See here: _http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-president-suspends-fraternities-until-jan-9-in-wake-of-rape-allegations/2014/11/22/023d3688-7272-11e4-8808-afaa1e3a33ef_story.html

Fourth:

Alex Pinkleton, a close friend of Jackie’s who survived a rape and an attempted rape during her first two years on campus, said in an interview that she has had numerous conversations with Jackie in recent days and now feels misled.

Fifth:

Renda said Thursday that Jackie initially told her she was attacked by five students at Phi Kappa Psi. Renda said she learned months later that Jackie had changed the number of attackers from five to seven.

“An advocate is not supposed to be an investigator, a judge or an adjudicator,” said Renda, a 2014 graduate who works for the university as a sexual violence awareness specialist. But as details emerge that cast doubt on Jackie’s account, Renda said, “I don’t even know what I believe at this point.”

Jackie insists the story is true, but clearly there are some problems. Maybe an event did happen, but Jackie is now shown to be a publicly unreliable witness. Responsibility rests in large part with the writer, Sabrina Rubin Erdely. Did you know this isn't the first time she's pulled a stunt like this? Needlessly embellishing a story and either refusing to fact check or knowingly publishing lies are things she's done before. And yes, other people have suffered then too for her negligence.

Here's a breakdown on her piece on "Billy": _http://www.bigtrial.net/2014/12/before-rolling-stone-was-conned-by.html

Billy was an even more questionable source than Jackie was, and Erdely knew it, but that didn't stop her from tarring and feathering the Catholic defendants in her piece, who are probably innocent. Billy is clearly a liar through and through, and yet Erdely chose to publish and spread his diatribe against his local church. A Catholic school teacher, in all likelihood innocent, is still in jail waiting for appeal because of him.

Or you can go back to her piece on the Rape of Petty Officer Blumer, see here: _http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-rape-of-petty-officer-blumer-20130214

You can read the comments to see how much Erdely is disliked as a journalist for her repeated deceptions, and Tommy on twitter breaks down the holes in that piece too: _https://storify.com/gerrydales/firstteamtommy-destroys-rs-author-s-other-works-yo

All those red flags I saw really were red flags. I'm surprised nobody had thoughts of skepticism. This is a clear pattern of deception, it seems I was the only one to do some digging and find out the deception occurring just under the surface. I expect more discrepancies to turn up as well. Another piece on her by another writer, also disparaging her deceptiveness: _http://www.lukeford.net/blog/?p=60662

I think Erdely specifically chooses this turbulent subject matter so that she can further her political and career aims while denying her readers the ability to analyze work critically. All three pieces have the same subject, rape under horribly inhumane circumstances. And all of them have unfortunate victims, a college freshman, a young petty officer, and a young altar boy. She encourages you not to doubt the victim who must have been very brave to make it this far, but this obscures the deception implicit in it. She uses her readers Sacred Cows to manipulate them. This is, at least, my feeling, after going through more of her work.

Now I'll respond to objections in turn, in good faith.

So, how can you assess whether this article is a lie or not when you have such preconceived ideas about men (and women)?

Hi Marianna, thanks for your reply. I am aware of the work you describe, and I agree about the often pathological nature of human sexuality. However those are outliers, and college fraternities are usually made up of healthy, high status males. That doesn't preclude pathological, dominating tendencies, but we should remember that all such behaviors are subordinated to reason. They engage in such acts for a specific end: Domination, control, and pleasure from the suffering of the victim. In other words, power, from which further pleasure is acquired. So, how can I assess whether this article was a fabrication or not? By using my knowledge and my sense for deception. And it appears that I was correct too.

Rape is not about having pleasure, it's about inflicting pain and to humiliate the victim. There are many articles on SOTT about the phenomenon of group rape in India for instance. It's not a natural thing to do for a normal, caring human being, but in some cases of social ponerisation, it becomes a reality.

I can't comment on group rape in India, that's only something I've heard about via SOTT. But I dsagree that rape is not about having pleasure. It's about both. Power, control, and humiliation of an opponent do give pleasure and are supposed to give pleasure, otherwise there is no point. Pathological people may be lacking on conscience, but not will for pleasure.

You're projecting what you think of as normal sexual behavior and desires onto people who have totally different mindset. I'd really recommend you read Cleckley's Caricature of Love. And some Dabrowski.

I'm still in the beginning of Caricature of Love, fascinating work. I didn't know Dabrowski wrote on pathological qualities, but I haven't given his theory of disintergreation the thorough reading it deserves.

Exactly. It's disgusting. Which may be the reason you are going through such mental gymnastics to rationalize why such things are actually much more common than you'll allow yourself to accept.

You misunderstand. I don't see it as impossible. I see it as unusual, because it is. Gang rape is not a normal or common behavior for human males. When the claim is made, it must be scrutinized. It's that simple. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary skepticism.

Rape is not a sexual act, but an act of violence. It is a way of claiming control, or one's will, upon the victim by the aggressor.... I think sometimes the sexual element clouds our understanding of what rape is. Fundamentally, it is targeting a group of people they hold hate for.

I totally agree it is an act of violence, but the sexuality of the act is implicit in that. Is it a way of dominating? Absolutely, but that doesn't negate the sexual pleasure aspect. I can't be certain of the hate aspect. Could it be true? Yes, Hate is a powerful motivator. Is it likely? Who knows. That's outside of my knowledge, and I my restrain myself from holding beliefs or making judgements beyond my knowledge.

FWIW, Wu Wei Wu, this study of abnormal human sexuality and violence towards women in general, cannot be found in most text books (I am not implying that that is your only source of information). This stuff is buried; truth and evidence is hard to find. Often it is her word against his. And with a male dominated society, it is no wonder these claims are scrutinized and rarely believed.

I agree with you, and while I strive to be well read, almost all my in-person experience points towards justification in skepticism. I know more than a few women who said they were raped but weren't, and when it come out in public they modified their story. It's not unusual. But a rape accusation can ruin a man's life and career, so we need to take the very seriously, and be very careful when we make judgements either way.

FWIW- As for the statistic of 8% false allegations, that may even be a little high.

I went to track down the piece, but alas, it's members only. I can't get in. It may be fruitful to read and analyze the study. If anybody has access to Sage Journals, I'll break down the study for the rest of you, see here: _http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/16/12/1318.full.pdf+html


I think that's about all the points for now. Was I really the only one so skeptical about this story? Surely others held their judgement. I hold fast to my position, especially now that the evidence has vindicated me. Whatever went on that night for Jackie, it wasn't what she said it was. And whatever Erdely writes, it should be doubted given her history of lies, deception, and obfuscation.