UVA Rape Culture

[CNS]

Wu Wei Wu, I certainly appreciate your research efforts. You do a lot of good work. However, I feel as though you might be missing the bigger picture here. Even if 'Jackie's' story is unfounded, that doesn't mean that she was not raped, as per the quote from Rhiannon. She may not have every detail, in fact she may be way off, but her friend from that night did notice her 'visibly shaken'. Something in all probability did happen to her that evening.

And it does happen:

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.

Right there we have mention of a rape and an attempted rape on the UVA campus.

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.

It seems as though you are defending the very institutions that breed our pyschopathic elites. Are you saying here that gang rape is primarily a back-alley, Skid Row problem, limited only to the impoverished women of the world, and that frat members would not engage in such a manner? I know I am putting words in your mouth, but that is the impression I get from your statement above.

You may be right with your research and opinion of Jackie and the RS article WWW, but at what cost? Is the energy putting in worth the return? These things happen, and in abundance, and when so much effort is put forth to discriminate a story like this, the effect IMO is detrimental to all those whose stories are then discredited without merit. I could be way off here, but maybe you are experiencing the 'Right Man Syndrome'??

As for skepticism on this forum, I cannot speak for everyone, but I think most here have a pretty healthy sense of it, otherwise they probably wouldn't have found there way here in the first place. OSIT.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Not having read the full original RS article, I didn't form an assessment one way or the other on Jackie's allegations. As with ANY rape allegation, of course, there is the possibility that the claim is fabricated. And that said, I think you're delusional if you think scenarios almost identical to the one told by Jackie happen ALL THE TIME. There is absolutely nothing surprising about many of the details you point out as 'red flags' (beer bottle, 3 hours, violence). But I don't think that's even the point here.

What struck me most about your posts about it hasn't been your 'skepticism', but your right-man syndrome, your seemingly willful ignorance of sexual pathology, your strange attitudes towards a subject as clear-cut as rape and sexual assault (regardless of the specific case involved), and your illogical thinking and false premises surrounding your 'argument'.

 

[truth seeker]

Hi WWW,

I'm wondering if you may be somewhat identified with those in a position of privilege? In other words, is it possible that there something about that class of people, in general, that you feel you resonate with?

 

[Wu Wei Wu]

Wu Wei Wu, I certainly appreciate your research efforts. You do a lot of good work. However, I feel as though you might be missing the bigger picture here. Even if 'Jackie's' story is unfounded, that doesn't mean that she was not raped, as per the quote from Rhiannon. She may not have every detail, in fact she may be way off, but her friend from that night did notice her 'visibly shaken'. Something in all probability did happen to her that evening.

Thank you for your appreciation. Personally I think something did happen. Such accounts do not spring out of a great well of nothingness, there is a real cause for them. But it could just as easily have been a women engaging in sexual activity, with consent, that she later regretted. We don't know, and we can't rely on 'Jackie' to be honest. That's the troublesome part.

It seems as though you are defending the very institutions that breed our pyschopathic elites. Are you saying here that gang rape is primarily a back-alley, Skid Row problem, limited only to the impoverished women of the world, and that frat members would not engage in such a manner? I know I am putting words in your mouth, but that is the impression I get from your statement above.

My intention in my research was to get closer to the truth of the situation, and the truth points to a tentative exoneration of the fraternity. Even if this particular fraternity did have a history of sexual assault, that does not villanize the fraternity system as a whole. The fraternity system began as a brotherhood system. It, like many institutions of religion, have been corrupted and now contribute to the corruption and harm of others. But that does not in itself point to the failure of fraternities as a whole. The article was an attack on all fraternities, a guilt by association ploy, as is clear in Erdely's writing and her past work. I myself have never been in a fraternity, but I've also never been in a monastery and I wouldn't impugn the honor of all monasteries because some people in one may have been sour.

You may be right with your research and opinion of Jackie and the RS article WWW, but at what cost? Is the energy putting in worth the return? These things happen, and in abundance, and when so much effort is put forth to discriminate a story like this, the effect IMO is detrimental to all those whose stories are then discredited without merit. I could be way off here, but maybe you are experiencing the 'Right Man Syndrome'??

As for skepticism on this forum, I cannot speak for everyone, but I think most here have a pretty healthy sense of it, otherwise they probably wouldn't have found there way here in the first place. OSIT.

This is like asking, is truth in the world worth the cost of my time and labor? Why yes, yes it is. That is why I participate on this forum. I want to learn more about myself and the world around me in an objective way. Just like the MH17 affair was worth my time to study and investigate, so is this. Yes, other similar stories will be discredited, but isn't that a good thing? After all, how many of them show similar discrepancies? Truth is my goal, and truth can be painful. Sometimes you learn things that are not pleasant. But that is the price of truth.

My comment on the skepticism came because I saw 3 pages of anger and rage a very little analysis. I was also angry when I first read it, and that inspired me to be very careful, for when a work is written to make one angry it is likely an attempt at manipulation. And whether this manipulation is good or bad, I don't know, so I watch carefully. Anything that triggers me, I apply greater scrutiny, so as to offset an irrational emotional response.

And that said, I think you're delusional if you think scenarios almost identical to the one told by Jackie happen ALL THE TIME.

I take your response in good faith. I am not ignorant of these scenarios, but if you think I would benefit from further research please provide some sources. I'm all for further education. I have read the links supplied earlier.

What struck me most about your posts about it hasn't been your 'skepticism', but your right-man syndrome, your seemingly willful ignorance of sexual pathology, your strange attitudes towards a subject as clear-cut as rape and sexual assault (regardless of the specific case involved), and your illogical thinking and false premises surrounding your 'argument'

As to the Right Man Syndrome, I checked it out via this link, the idea is new to me: _http://www.catvincent.com/?p=1021/michael_prescotts_blog/2013/06/the-right-man.html
If you want to make the claim that I used false premises and illogical thinking, that's fine. But you'll have to demonstrate them. You should be able to present chinks or gaps in my argument that are plain to see. For me, Rape is a heinous crime, with a very severe legal consequence. Any claim to rape must be taken seriously and with great scrutiny. There's a lot on the line. I would apply the same standard to a host of other crimes and malicious acts.

In all fairness, you've made claims that I'm plainly delusional, willfully ignorant, have strange attitudes and am illogical. Those are heavy accusations. If they are true, I would like to educate and improve myself. If they are false, I'd hope you see the falsity for yourself as they'd point to some ignorance in you. But either way, we should demonstrate them and find out so we can both be better off, yes?

I'm wondering if you may be somewhat identified with those in a position of privilege? In other words, is it possible that there something about that class of people, in general, that you feel you resonate with?

I don't think the modern notion of privilege, as used in the feminist sense, has any merit. This after years of studying feminism and women's studies myself. But I will answer for you. I am white, and I am male, I have never been apart of a fraternity, have no stake in fraternities, and am not even American, nor am I wealthy or upper class. None of that should matter, the merits of my argument should stand on their own feet, but I don't think everyone here shares my perspective.

Regardless, if others want to continue the dialogue that is fine, but I hope I have contributed to the enlightenment of others with regards to this story. Sabrina Erdely has taken advantage of the suffering of others to make a false story, and the result is discord in many places, for many people.

 

[truth seeker]

I'm wondering if you may be somewhat identified with those in a position of privilege? In other words, is it possible that there something about that class of people, in general, that you feel you resonate with?

I don't think the modern notion of privilege, as used in the feminist sense, has any merit. This after years of studying feminism and women's studies myself. But I will answer for you. I am white, and I am male, I have never been apart of a fraternity, have no stake in fraternities, and am not even American, nor am I wealthy or upper class. None of that should matter, the merits of my argument should stand on their own feet, but I don't think everyone here shares my perspective.

When I used the word privilege, I was thinking more along the lines of how it's understood in the original sense - wealth and upper class as you wrote above. My questions were an attempt to better understand where you're coming from because it did seem as if you might be a bit identified with the mindset of those who are perceived to have power. While in part, the details of your personal situation are beside the point, there are many ways that people, in general, can feel disenfranchised and end up defending the very institutions that keep them in their place. So perhaps what you are really identified with is the current plight that many men, in general, but white men, in particular face, which is feeling a sort of separateness from society at large. Society, to a large part, anestithizes men from their innate ability to recognize their feelings which leads to being unable to acknowledge and empathize with the feelings of others. A difficult situation, indeed.

To use an example, many white men nowadays feel marginalized due to feminism (and other factors) and understandably respond to much of life in unacknowledged confusion and pain. For the record, I don't consider myself a feminist, but I guess, closer to a humanist, if I had to put a label on it.

Regardless, if others want to continue the dialogue that is fine, but I hope I have contributed to the enlightenment of others with regards to this story. Sabrina Erdely has taken advantage of the suffering of others to make a false story, and the result is discord in many places, for many people.

I respect your desire to find out what the truth of the matter is and find some of the points you bring up interesting, but even if it turns out that Jackie's story isn't true and that Erdley's intentions were to stir the pot, I still have to question institutions that consistently make it difficult to report such crimes. From what I understand, it seems they often do so out of fear of losing funding.

My comment on the skepticism came because I saw 3 pages of anger and rage a very little analysis. I was also angry when I first read it, and that inspired me to be very careful, for when a work is written to make one angry it is likely an attempt at manipulation. And whether this manipulation is good or bad, I don't know, so I watch carefully. Anything that triggers me, I apply greater scrutiny, so as to offset an irrational emotional response.

Not all emotions are irrational, some are righteous and there is a fine line between the two, I think.

 

[Beau]

I read this article and I feel it best encapsulates my feelings on this whole Jackie-RS situation. Check the original for embedded links.

Who is Jackie? Rolling Stone's rape story is about a person – and I believe her

No matter how the frenzy of denial ends, there is a reason that people believe this young woman: because there are too many people like her

There’s not a lot we know about Jackie, not really. She’s a third-year student at the University of Virginia who says that, when she was 18 and in her first year of college, she was raped by a group of fraternity men. She didn’t report the attack to the police or the school, instead confiding – a full, pained two years later – to the members of a student-run support group for sexual assault survivors (and then, after that, to Sabrina Rubin Erdely of Rolling Stone magazine).

One in five women is sexually assaulted at American universities – so Jackie’s story wasn’t so uncommon. Campus sexual assault survivors – both private and public – try to deal with their attacks in the best way they can, and many are afraid to speak out or report through official channels, knowing the stigma and harassment that can come when you admit to being a rape survivor.

What did end up making Jackie different is that, one day, a reporter came to campus.

After Jackie was approached by Erdely, she agreed to share her story – but she then changed her mind. She told the Washington Post that she found the interviews too overwhelming, and wanted to be taken out of the article. Erdely refused (a violation of journalistic standards when working with sexual assault survivors) and Jackie says she felt “completely out of control over my own story”.

After publishing a 9,000-word feature revolving around Jackie’s story and coming under increasing pressure from multiple media outlets, Rolling Stone later said it had “misplaced” trust in Jackie, citing “inconsistencies” in her story – even though disjointed and unreliable memories are not uncommon in trauma victims. Then, without acknowledgement or apology, the magazine changed its statement to read that any reporting failures “are on Rolling Stone, not on Jackie”.

But it doesn’t matter. Jackie is now another woman who is not believed.

Whether she is able to remain anonymous or not, and even though her story of being raped has not been disproven, the fact that Jackie is not and was not a symbol or a cause, but a person, has been lost in the rush to indict her and anyone who believes her.

I choose to believe Jackie. I lose nothing by doing so, even if I’m later proven wrong – but at least I will still be able to sleep at night for having stood by a young woman who may have been through an awful trauma.

No matter how the media story ends, or what we come to know, there is a reason that people believed and continue to believe Jackie: There are so many people – too many people – who report similar attacks.

As Julia Horowitz, an editor at UVA’s student newspaper, wrote at Politico:

What does it say that we read an article in which an 18-year-old girl was pinned down, graphically violated by multiple people in a house we pass almost every day – and we thought, ‘That just may be right?’

But as much as Jackie’s story has resonated with survivors and become a flashpoint in a larger conversation about sexual violence, it is still the story of one young woman. Jackie is still a person – one who spoke out about sexual violence (without even naming the accused) to then be shamed, harassed and threatened.

The current frenzy to prove Jackie’s story false – whether because the horror of a violent gang rape is too much to face or because disbelief is the misogynist status quo – will do incredible damage to all rape victims, but it is this one young woman who will suffer most.

As one fourth-year UVA student told me on Sunday, “The most important thing is her.” So wherever Jackie is – whomever she is – I hope she knows that there are people who will help her. And that we are sorry.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

My comment on the skepticism came because I saw 3 pages of anger and rage a very little analysis. I was also angry when I first read it, and that inspired me to be very careful, for when a work is written to make one angry it is likely an attempt at manipulation. And whether this manipulation is good or bad, I don't know, so I watch carefully.

That's good!

Anything that triggers me, I apply greater scrutiny, so as to offset an irrational emotional response.

That's tricky. The initial "irrational [that word tends to carry pejorative connotations] emotional response" is HEALTHY. It's only when we forget to use our reason after the fact that things can get problematic.

I am not ignorant of these scenarios, but if you think I would benefit from further research please provide some sources. I'm all for further education. I have read the links supplied earlier.

Again, check out the Franklin scandal, the Dutroux affair, and the lesser publicized similar cases. See how prevalent these attitudes are among "high-status" individuals. And again, read Dabrowski.

As to the Right Man Syndrome, I checked it out via this link, the idea is new to me: _http://www.catvincent.com/?p=1021/michael_prescotts_blog/2013/06/the-right-man.html

You can also search the forum for other references.

As for deluding oneself/strange attitudes/bad logic, a few examples:

Generally people are lazy, men look for the quick fix, and nobody inflicts pain on themselves if they can avoid it.

Over-generalizing and using that over-generalization to come to a conclusion that depends on that generalization being true in all cases. It's simply not true that "nobody" inflicts pain on themselves if they can avoid it. And in this case (see below), there's simply not enough data to come to the conclusion that they didn't try to avoid pain. Or that they didn't experience some pain unintentionally.

Are we to assume that these men are so dysfunctional they need 20 minutes to get off each? That's ridiculous.

Again, generalization used as false premise to support an odd conclusion. Rape isn't just about having an orgasm at someone else's expense.

Everything I know about male sexuality says that men would not act that way.

Sounds like you're using primarily knowledge about your own sexuality, not the mindset of a rapist.

Firstly, the guys would have to be very foolish to try and rape in the glass. ... 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.

Not enough information in the original article to come to this conclusion. Taking the article at face value, we simply don't know enough about the whole glass table. Did someone brush away the obviously dangerous pieces of glass? Possible, but Jackie might not notice something like that.

And again "masculine nature"? Says who? It's not as simple as men's attitude to sexuality. It is the attitude of a certain type of male.

Furthermore Jackie is openly partisan and politically active in reducing sexual assaults.

Not a reason to doubt someone's story.

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.

This sounds like you're saying some girls have it coming. Apologies if I misread you. But I'd call that, generously, a strange attitude to hold.

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

All of the above: you're deluding yourself if you think "nobody" would do such a thing. That leads to bad logic because of a false preconceived notion.

I don't think the modern notion of privilege, as used in the feminist sense, has any merit.

"As used in the feminist sense"? How about just using the dictionary: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

 

[JonnyRadar]

[quote author=Wu Wei Wu]The Beer Bottle scenario was also totally unrealistic. Who does that? Nobody.[/quote]

Wu Wei Wu, that's a pretty blanket statement. I knew a person who was raped with a loaded pistol. Such things, and worse, do happen.

 

[lainey]

[quote author=Wu Wei Wu]The Beer Bottle scenario was also totally unrealistic. Who does that? Nobody.

Wu Wei Wu, that's a pretty blanket statement. I knew a person who was raped with a loaded pistol. Such things, and worse, do happen.
[/quote]
Yup, I live with someone (not for much longer) who acts out rape scenarios for fun and was raped and beaten with a broom stick. She came home completely black and blue and she said it was the best fun she had ever had. I suggest you open your eyes, we live in a psychopathic society, people will do anything and everything if it takes their fancy.
I'm not suggesting my flatmate is a psychopath BTW, but she is troubled.

 

[gdpetti]

FWIW.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/jackies-uva-suitemate-rolling-stone-story-is-not-a-hoax/ar-BBgv4dn?ocid=mailsignout

Jackie's UVA suitemate: Rolling Stone story "is not a hoax"
Vox.com
Andrew Prokop 6 hrs ago

Rolling Stone has apologized for its story detailing a graphic gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity, after discrepancies emerged in the main source's story. And serious questions about the journalism practices Rolling Stone used have been raised, particularly in its behavior toward Jackie, the student who said she was raped.

But Sunday night, a suitemate of Jackie's from that time, Emily Clark, went public with a letter saying she still believed that Jackie " went through a traumatizing sexual assault ," which you can read at the Cavalier Daily . Clark describes a sudden change in Jackie's demeanor and behavior during her first semester:

I remember my first semester here, and I remember Jackie's. Jackie came to UVA bright, happy and bubbly. She was kind, funny, outgoing, friendly, and a pleasant person to be around. That all notably changed by December 2012, and I wasn't the only one who noticed. Our suite bonded that first semester and talked many times about the new troubles we were facing in college. Jackie never mentioned anything about her assault to us until much later. But I, as well as others, noticed Jackie becoming more and more withdrawn and depressed.

She says that Jackie stopped going to class, leading to a breakdown:

In December 2012, Jackie broke down. All of a sudden she was going home and none of us knew why. It was right before finals, and I couldn't believe she was leaving. She was distraught, and only said she needed to go home... Sometime that year I remember her letting it slip to me that she had had a terrible experience at a party. I remember her telling me that multiple men had assaulted her at this party. She didn't say anything more. It seemed that was all she'd allow herself to say.

Clark concludes by saying that, based on her interactions with Jackie, she believes "this story is not a hoax, a lie or a scheme." Head over to the Cavalier Daily for her account.

--------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cavalierdaily.com/m/blog/on-sexual-assault-letters-from-the-community/2014/12/a-letter-from-a-friend-jackies-story-is-not-a-hoax

A letter from a friend: Jackie's story is not a hoax
by Emily Clark | on Dec 07 at 10:43pm

Fellow Wahoos,

My name is Emily, and I was Jackie’s suitemate first year. I am writing to you in regards to Rolling Stone’s recent statement of “misplaced trust” in Jackie. I feel this statement is backwards, as it seems it was Jackie who misplaced her trust in Rolling Stone.

I fully support Jackie, and I believe wholeheartedly that she went through a traumatizing sexual assault. I remember my first semester here, and I remember Jackie’s. Jackie came to UVA bright, happy and bubbly. She was kind, funny, outgoing, friendly, and a pleasant person to be around. That all notably changed by December 2012, and I wasn’t the only one who noticed. Our suite bonded that first semester and talked many times about the new troubles we were facing in college. Jackie never mentioned anything about her assault to us until much later. But I, as well as others, noticed Jackie becoming more and more withdrawn and depressed.

I remember her alarm going off every morning. I always assumed she had gone to class and forgot to turn off her later alarms. Being the lazy freshman I was, I tended to roll over in bed and pay no mind to it, hoping somebody else would turn it off, and remind Jackie about it once she got back from class. If I had known Jackie wasn’t going to class, that she was curled up in bed without the will to turn off the alarm, things would have been much different. I remember second semester, she shared a Netflix account with me and I noticed how much TV she was watching — hours and hours of shows that seemed to get darker and darker as time went on. I wondered how she had time, with homework and school, and I wondered if she was okay. I didn’t ask. I wish I had.

In December 2012, Jackie broke down. All of a sudden she was going home and none of us knew why. It was right before finals, and I couldn’t believe she was leaving. She was distraught, and only said she needed to go home. Her teachers had given her allowance to take her finals over break. At that point, we knew something big had happened. I didn’t know until this year with the publication of Rolling Stone’s article how bad that time was for her.

Sometime that year I remember her letting it slip to me that she had had a terrible experience at a party. I remember her telling me that multiple men had assaulted her at this party. She didn’t say anything more. It seemed that was all she’d allow herself to say. I wish I had done something sooner. I wish I had known how to help. But I applaud Jackie for telling her story, now two years later. It was a story that needed to be told.

However, the articles released in the past few days have been troubling to me, and the responses to them even more so. While I cannot say what happened that night, and I cannot prove the validity of every tiny aspect of her story to you, I can tell you that this story is not a hoax, a lie or a scheme. Something terrible happened to Jackie at the hands of several men who have yet to receive any repercussions.

Whether the details are correct or not, and whether the reporting was faulty, or the hazy memories of a traumatizing night got skewed…the blame should never fall on the victim’s shoulders. Jackie is a victim, as are so many others, men and women, young and old. So many stories have gone untold and so many perpetrators have been allowed to walk free.

There is fear among us, and there is pain after these past few weeks of turmoil. But there is also hope, which has been manifested in a multitude of protests, speeches, and groups formed. There is a support growing among students and faculty that has never been seen before. The number of conversations occurring about rape, rights, consent and justice is astounding and inspiring, but talking only goes so far.

As we approach this much-needed winter break I urge you to continue to support your fellow wahoos; do not let this issue die. Speak up when you see something happening that does not feel right; act when you have a chance to stop something terrible. Talk with your friends, let them know you support them, and that no reputation matters more than their own safety and basic human rights. Let them know you’ll stand by them and that their stories do matter. Walk your friends home, look out for one another, do not turn your back on a fellow student. Discourage those who have caved to peer pressure which encourages them to devalue another human being. Support the efforts of the groups leading change in the wake of this tough semester: One Less, Not on Our Grounds (#HoosGotYourBack), Help Save the Next Girl, and Buddies on Call. Let the nation know we are not a scandal school, but a school that does not tolerate injustice. We are in the public eye right now, and we can either let that cripple us, and shove us back into the mold of a perfect institution, or we can recognize that we have flaws, but that we work to reconcile them.

Sexual assault is not just a UVA issue, but UVA is where this issue has come to the forefront. The University of Virginia is a school historically known for its powerful student body. The Hoos of UVA have always rallied when a change was needed. We still stand as one of the top schools in the nation, and we can be the face of change. Let us be an example, and not a failure. Let us stand with survivors.

Emily Clark

CLAS '16
---------------

 

[Wu Wei Wu]

So first things first, new developments in the story. 'Jackie' has been doxxed. On the one side, she's recieved character support, but no claims have been substantiated. On the other side, her character has been further marked by the Dox. See here: _http://gotnews.com/breaking-heres-jackie-coakley-rape-obsessed-pinterest-account-uvahoax/

If what GotNews says is right, that's damning evidence. According to their sources at UVa (two students there) 'Jackie' has lied about sexual assaults in the past. I'm not going to post the name here, you can get it from the link. 'Jackie' will probably sued by someone for defamation. On the one side, it's likely something did happen. On the other, her story is plainly manipulated, and someone will hold her responsible for the damage wrought. An overall ugly situation. The original assailants, if there are any, will get away unscathed and Jackie will be punished in a civil court for her defamation probably.

While in part, the details of your personal situation are beside the point, there are many ways that people, in general, can feel disenfranchised and end up defending the very institutions that keep them in their place. So perhaps what you are really identified with is the current plight that many men, in general, but white men, in particular face, which is feeling a sort of separateness from society at large. Society, to a large part, anestithizes men from their innate ability to recognize their feelings which leads to being unable to acknowledge and empathize with the feelings of others. A difficult situation, indeed.

To use an example, many white men nowadays feel marginalized due to feminism (and other factors) and understandably respond to much of life in unacknowledged confusion and pain. For the record, I don't consider myself a feminist, but I guess, closer to a humanist, if I had to put a label on it.

Your comment is empathetic and well presented. I can certainly attest to the injustice of the situation. I have no interest in defending either UVa or the particular fraternity per say, only the institutional models which are being discredited in the article. I can also attest to the marginalization, though as a relatively talented young men I've always been able to avoid the spears of feminism. I make no secret of my disdain for ideologies that are contrary and harmful to human nature, of which feminism is one of many.

I do feel the suffering of my peers, as a matter of empathy. Countless young men crave meaning, brotherhood, and masculine guidance proper to their nature. Our society suppresses almost all the productive forms of those desires leaving only the self-damaging expressions. It's a real pity.

I still have to question institutions that consistently make it difficult to report such crimes. From what I understand, it seems they often do so out of fear of losing funding.

I agree, but that leaves us with a black hole of information. Hence, I reserve judgement. I can't be sure. My personal experience in college was nothing like what Erdely described, that's for sure. This could be an isolated case or it might not.

@Heimdallar: I think Jackie underwent some kind of traumatic experience too, but if we rely on faulty memory and accusation on such matters we will cause horrendous damage.

That's tricky. The initial "irrational [that word tends to carry pejorative connotations] emotional response" is HEALTHY. It's only when we forget to use our reason after the fact that things can get problematic.

For sure. Anger is a good thing, in its proper place.

Over-generalizing and using that over-generalization to come to a conclusion that depends on that generalization being true in all cases. It's simply not true that "nobody" inflicts pain on themselves if they can avoid it. And in this case (see below), there's simply not enough data to come to the conclusion that they didn't try to avoid pain. Or that they didn't experience some pain unintentionally.

No, that's a misunderstanding of the term generalization. We use 'general rules' because they apply to a significant portion of a population. For example, 'generally' men are taller than women. That does not mean that all men are taller than all women, it means a significant portion of that population is taller than the other. Generalizations are heuristics, essentially. For example, I'm not lazy, I don't look for a quick fix, and I'm not averse to pain in pursuit of a goal, but generally most people I have met are. Have I met others who are like me? Certainly, but we're a small proportion of the population relative to the non-pain averse. Like risk-taking. Everyone would agree that 'generally, most people don't take huge risks', but that doesn't mean that aren't a portion that do. We call them the 'exceptions to the rule'.

Again, generalization used as false premise to support an odd conclusion. Rape isn't just about having an orgasm at someone else's expense.

For sure, rape is more than one-sided orgasm, otherwise all bad sex would be rape. Rape is also about power and control, but who takes. The question is length here, duration of the rape. I tried to find some numbers on the duration of rape, but didn't find any. Three hours seems excessive, especially for 7 guys with better things to do. The second question is time needed for the guys to ejaculate, and the number was an average of 20 minutes. That would point to extreme erectile dysfunction in the lot of them. Possible? Yes. Likely? Less so. Plus, the other men might shame whoever takes a long time. Generalizations are a valid tool for use in these circumstances. Are they exact? Not at all, they are generalizations after all, but they'll get us closer.

If I told you it took me 2 hours to make a sandwich, you'd express disbelief, because generally it takes a few minutes to make a sandwich. Generalizations are useful.

Not enough information in the original article to come to this conclusion. Taking the article at face value, we simply don't know enough about the whole glass table. Did someone brush away the obviously dangerous pieces of glass? Possible, but Jackie might not notice something like that.

And again "masculine nature"? Says who? It's not as simple as men's attitude to sexuality. It is the attitude of a certain type of male.

Presumably, Jackie would also have sustained some kind of injury from the fall, but there was neither report nor a check of that, neither for bruises, cuts, or scars. Also suspicious. If the victim claims to have been injured, as she did, you'd think that would be investigated. Her friends also reported no injuries, if I remember. This claim is verifiable, so we should hold it to account, but again, it wasn't investigated at all. Shilly journalism by Erdely again.

I agree that a certain subset of the male population is deviant, but it'll be deviant without boundaries. We also have no evidence to suppose that all the frat members were psychopaths, so I considered the situation from both angles, that they are, are not, and are ponerized to varying degrees. From that analysis I concluded it was not in line with general male sexuality.

Not a reason to doubt someone's story.

On the contrary, I think it suffices to apply greater scrutiny. If the barber tells me I need a haircut, apply scrutiny. If the feminist tells me she was the victim of misogyny, apply scrutiny. Where there are conflicts of interest, apply scrutiny. If the first link I posted in this response is accurate, that scrutiny is certainly warranted.

This sounds like you're saying some girls have it coming. Apologies if I misread you. But I'd call that, generously, a strange attitude to hold.

I wouldn't say that at all. Suppose I walk through a dark alley at night, and I get robbed. Did I deserve to get robbed? Probably not. Should I have been more responsible, knowing the potential dangers of the dark alley, the area, my expensive apparel, etc? Yes. That's wisdom. Some things are foreseeable, and you plan ahead for them. This is adult responsibility and basic awareness we're talking about. I won't apply it to this particular case because we really don't know what happened, but this basic awareness is severely lacking in the millennial generation.

All of the above: you're deluding yourself if you think "nobody" would do such a thing. That leads to bad logic because of a false preconceived notion.

I knew a person who was raped with a loaded pistol. Such things, and worse, do happen.

My bad, I should have been more clear. I find it unlikely statistically that someone would do that. I think some deviants would too. As for the pistol, wow, that's pretty sick.

"As used in the feminist sense"? How about just using the dictionary: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people.

A privilege concerns a benefit given by one entity unto another. The feminists have a particular conception of privilege as advantage conferred by the patriarchy onto target populations, but when you carry that to the end you can't pin it down. The 'patriarchy' is not a real thing, per say. It not conscious, nor an organization, nor anything really. That's why I'm careful of the use of the term privilege, because when used in the feminist way it can never be substantiated. This is its own topic.

She came home completely black and blue and she said it was the best fun she had ever had.

There are women who do this, I know a few. Some of them have their partner inflict it on them, and call it rape. All the more reason to be careful of claims. If she gives consent and shows desire to do this and you do it, is it rape? No, its not, the women is a deviant. It's called a Rape Fantasy, and it's pretty common in the West which shows the utter degeneracy of our sexual culture. There's a whole section of the pron industry devoted to this kind of mock violence, it's pretty disgusting.



I hope I've demonstrated that I'm not illogical, that my use of generalizations is fair, and that I'm not delusional. It's clear we have different starting premises for a lot of this, based on our respective experiences and accrued knowledge, and this affects our final conclusion. I've found the links many of you have supplied insightful, though I wish I could have learned more about these things beyond the context of such a horrible story. Nonetheless, my original conclusion stands firm: Something may have happened but Jackie is not a reliable source to take action upon, and Erdely is a horrible, negligent journalist.

PS. The reason unshakable evidence is necessary is that old Anglo tradition of innocent until proven guilty. Not everyone has it, but as I come from an Anglo culture, the proven part is taken very seriously. If it's not enough, better to let an unjust man walk than punish a just man. I'm aware lots of people won't hold this perspective, and I'm not sure I'll hold it forever, but for now it holds fast.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

No, that's a misunderstanding of the term generalization. We use 'general rules' because they apply to a significant portion of a population. For example, 'generally' men are taller than women. That does not mean that all men are taller than all women, it means a significant portion of that population is taller than the other. Generalizations are heuristics, essentially. For example, I'm not lazy, I don't look for a quick fix, and I'm not averse to pain in pursuit of a goal, but generally most people I have met are. Have I met others who are like me? Certainly, but we're a small proportion of the population relative to the non-pain averse. Like risk-taking. Everyone would agree that 'generally, most people don't take huge risks', but that doesn't mean that aren't a portion that do. We call them the 'exceptions to the rule'.

This is a rape story. Rapists fall outside the generalization. To use a generalization that applies to normal men, and apply it to rapists, is a misuse of the generalization.

 

[Hesper]

So first things first, new developments in the story. 'Jackie' has been doxxed. On the one side, she's recieved character support, but no claims have been substantiated. On the other side, her character has been further marked by the Dox. See here: _http://gotnews.com/breaking-heres-jackie-coakley-rape-obsessed-pinterest-account-uvahoax/

WWW, I read the link and the general logic seems to be that, since she made many posts against rape, after she stated she was raped, that she must be lying? I just investigated 4 pics and all were after her rape, around the time that she told her roommate about what allegedly happened. This news source also states it has unnamed sources that say she made up details of her sex life before? I work with people who make those details up all the time. I always thought it was silly, but normal. But no one is substantiating this author's claims, and the logic seems really silly, so why be so quick to accept this if you're really looking for the truth?

The article also states:

GotNews.com will also be offering a financial reward for credible evidence of other Coakley embellishments.

Well let's see what kind of good dirt people will make up for some money! Wow, they are really out to "put this girl in her place" OSIT.

The article also links to this:

UVA's chapter of Phi Kappa Psi, the fraternity at which Jackie says she was raped, rebutted details in Jackie's story in a Friday statement. Dana said he couldn't explain the "discrepancies" between the account reported in Rolling Stone and Phi Kappa Psi's statement.

Unfortunately the fraternity's denial would be expected either way. Between the truth and a lie there is a discrepancy.

Overall, the distortions in the account, including the wrong date, the fact that the alleged rapist wasn't part of the fraternity, the fact that she didn't go to the police, etc don't prove to me that she was lying. She could have been putting on a show for two years, sure, and she could be a female psychopath. But if that were so, I would expect LESS discrepancies in her story, not more. Because rape is a vicious crime and the details often don't fit. It happens time and time again because of the severe trauma. I for one don't see reason enough to call her a liar, especially because of this:

_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

Jackie’s former roommate, Rachel Soltis, said she noticed emotional and physical changes to her friend during the fall semester of 2012, when they shared a suite.

“She was withdrawn, depressed and couldn’t wake up in the mornings,” said Soltis, who said that she was convinced that Jackie was sexually assaulted. Soltis said that Jackie didn’t tell her about the alleged sexual assault until January 2013. Soltis said she did not notice any apparent wounds on Jackie’s body at the time of the alleged assault.

Hard to say. I'm in no hurry to form a conclusion, but I certainly do know that America is sufficiently ponerized to let policemen who murder people go free and look the other way as their country blows the world to bits. So would a bunch of victim blaming and back-tracking to save face surprise me in this case? No. In fact I see it as a more plausible explanation.

And WWW what does this bolded part mean?

To use an example, many white men nowadays feel marginalized due to feminism (and other factors) and understandably respond to much of life in unacknowledged confusion and pain. For the record, I don't consider myself a feminist, but I guess, closer to a humanist, if I had to put a label on it

I have no interest in defending either UVa or the particular fraternity per say, only the institutional models which are being discredited in the article. I can also attest to the marginalization, though as a relatively talented young men I've always been able to avoid the spears of feminism. I make no secret of my disdain for ideologies that are contrary and harmful to human nature, of which feminism is one of many.

It sounds to me like quite a combative attitude. What kind of talent is helping you avoid the barbs of feminism? As for the "white man" thing, well, I think we have to accept the fact that the typical man of any race feels marginalized because he's a selfish "dude" who thinks the world owes him everything. First initiation and all that, OSIT.

 

[Wu Wei Wu]

WWW, I read the link and the general logic seems to be that, since she made many posts against rape, after she stated she was raped, that she must be lying? I just investigated 4 pics and all were after her rape. This news source also states it has unnamed sources that say she made up details of her sex life before? I work with people who make those details up all the time. I always thought it was silly, but normal. But no one is substantiating this author's claims, and the logic seems really silly, so why be so quick to accept this if you're really looking for the truth?

In hindsight, I should put on the breaks a little. I must not forget that anonymous sources are questionable sources, and by their very nature they require greater scrutiny. Not that it changes anything. I'd be curious to see this pictures as well, I haven't found them yet. Though we should remember, now Andy's statement is out in the public, so if the pictures show conclusive injury, cuts, and scarring, that means their testimony may be questionable.
Here's the contrary comments regarding the injury and friends response, from the friend 'Andy': _http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/friend-interview-rolling-stone-details

Well let's see what kind of good dirt people will make up for some money! Wow, they are really out to "put this girl in her place" OSIT.

Lets not be so quick to discredit the idea. To decide that the whole story is true prematurely would be unwise. It does come from a questionable source and a negligent journalist, after all.

Unfortunately the fraternity's denial would be expected either way. Between the truth and a lie there is a discrepancy.

Overall, the distortions in the account, including the wrong date, the fact that the alleged rapist wasn't part of the fraternity, the fact that she didn't go to the police, etc don't prove to me that she was lying. She could have been putting on a show for two years, sure, and I guess some psychos would do that. But rape is a vicious crime and the details often don't fit. It happens time and time again because of the severe trauma. I for one don't see reason enough to call her a liar, especially because of this:

Yes, the fraternity denial is expected. They also say a lot of nothing in it, affirming their 'lack of knowledge', probably under advisement from their Lawyer in case future revelations about them do come up.

The discrepancies demonstrate she either lied in her account or was ignorant as to the truth. If she knew, and said something else, then she lied. If she did not, and said something she didn't know, then she defamed them. Memory difficulty is part of such trauma, and it is understandable, but then she defamed innocent people. Either way, she isn't a reliable source.

Hard to say. I'm in no hurry to form a conclusion, but I certainly do know that America is sufficiently ponerized to let policemen who murder people go free and look the other way as their country blows the world to bits. So would a bunch of victim blaming and back-tracking to save face surprise me in this case? No. In fact I see it as a more plausible explanation.

I think it's plausible too, but I don't think changes anything. Even if it is true that the rape did take place, we know nothing about the perpetrators. She says it was that specific fraternity, but nothing matches up. It's also plausible that a rape of some kind worked in a different scenario, and under the cover of her trauma she crafted a lie. I really don't know. There are lots of plausible scenarios in our twisted society. I do know that based on what I read, I would not trust her or Erdely.

And WWW what does this bolded part mean?

I interacted a lot with feminists in college and in the workplace. I found that good manners and a little social skill allowed me to evade conflictive situations.

I think we have to accept the fact that the typical man of any race feels marginalized because he's a selfish "dude" who thinks the world owes him everything. First initiation and all that, OSIT.

For sure, though I'd apply that to most women. I've found most millennials think they are special snowflakes that deserve the world on a platter. I certainly don't hide my combative attitude. Just as how I avoid psychopaths and sociopathic individuals wherever possible, and declaim destructive lies where external considering warrants, so I resist feminism like others. It is healthy to fight that which is destructive and deceptive.

 

[whitecoast]

[quote author=Wu Wei Wu]For sure, rape is more than one-sided orgasm, otherwise all bad sex would be rape. Rape is also about power and control, but who takes. The question is length here, duration of the rape. I tried to find some numbers on the duration of rape, but didn't find any. Three hours seems excessive, especially for 7 guys with better things to do. The second question is time needed for the guys to ejaculate, and the number was an average of 20 minutes. That would point to extreme erectile dysfunction in the lot of them. Possible? Yes. Likely? Less so. Plus, the other men might shame whoever takes a long time. Generalizations are a valid tool for use in these circumstances. Are they exact? Not at all, they are generalizations after all, but they'll get us closer.[/quote]

The duration is a really odd thing to nitpick on, given the emotional context of the perception. When someone is being tortured, like when being raped, one minute can seem like 5, easily.

A privilege concerns a benefit given by one entity unto another. The feminists have a particular conception of privilege as advantage conferred by the patriarchy onto target populations, but when you carry that to the end you can't pin it down. The 'patriarchy' is not a real thing, per say. It not conscious, nor an organization, nor anything really. That's why I'm careful of the use of the term privilege, because when used in the feminist way it can never be substantiated. This is its own topic.

Patriarchy is a culturally-engendered attitude toward women and how men can or ought to behave toward women, usually leading to women's decreased control over themselves, their lives, their environment, etc. Cultures are things, just like the Anglo-Saxon culture you mentioned further down. Cultures are general conventions or behaviors a collection of people act out. In trying to pin it on an organization or conscious decision, you might as well be asking "which snowflake shall we sue for the avalanche?"

I wouldn't say that at all. Suppose I walk through a dark alley at night, and I get robbed. Did I deserve to get robbed? Probably not. Should I have been more responsible, knowing the potential dangers of the dark alley, the area, my expensive apparel, etc? Yes. That's wisdom. Some things are foreseeable, and you plan ahead for them. This is adult responsibility and basic awareness we're talking about. I won't apply it to this particular case because we really don't know what happened, but this basic awareness is severely lacking in the millennial generation.

Superficially I can agree with this, but realistically anyone who's making an issue of the innocent person's behavior, instead of the robber's, is an immediate suspect for enabling the type of culture that says "robbers gonna rob" and "rapists gonna rape," as if these are facts of nature. There is no rape if there is no rapist in the room.

My bad, I should have been more clear. I find it unlikely statistically that someone would do that.

Whether something is *likely* to happen is an altogether different question from whether something *has* happened. Hence why we look at the case instead of relying on generalizations.

To use an example, many white men nowadays feel marginalized due to feminism (and other factors) and understandably respond to much of life in unacknowledged confusion and pain. For the record, I don't consider myself a feminist, but I guess, closer to a humanist, if I had to put a label on it

I have no interest in defending either UVa or the particular fraternity per say, only the institutional models which are being discredited in the article. I can also attest to the marginalization, though as a relatively talented young men I've always been able to avoid the spears of feminism. I make no secret of my disdain for ideologies that are contrary and harmful to human nature, of which feminism is one of many.

I agree with Hesper about the combative attitude. It sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder about the ideology of Feminism, and are treating it unfairly. When you disparage an ideology in its entirety, rather than the pathologicals and authoritarians that have infiltrated the ideology, you are immediately discounting all the good that the ideology has accomplished in its uncorrupted, humanistic angles. In the case of Feminism this would be universal suffrage, reproductive rights, employment equality, increased social/financial protection for single mothers, et cetera.

Are those spears guilt, by any chance? It's a common stereotype that feminists try and make men feel guilty for being men and for the way women are often treated. Even though this blaming angle is often emphasized by pathological feminists and victimhood-seeking men alike, I think that perception is completely internal considering. As I sort of hinted at with the snowflake-avalanche analogy, a blame or retribution mentality is self-defeating. In light of this the proper action is to take responsibility for making the world better for those who are less fortunate and empowered. To me humanistic feminism is just part of being a good obyvatel. Humanistic anything is, really.