Troubling Allegations Against Former Sheriff in Pinal County, AZ (Church mbr)

[smac97]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

My sense is that, for you, an allegation of sexual assault is, alone, definitive proof for itself.  A woman said it.  It must be so.  Any questions = "defending the rapists" and "defending... rape culture."

I really have no time so will just respond here. 

A woman is invited to someone’s home by a “friend”.

And she may or may not have been very (and voluntarily) drunk before even arriving.

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

She is given a mind altering illegal drug by this friend.

A few observations:

First, even by your reckoning she was "given a mind altering drug."  "Given."  Not "forced to take."  By her own account she consented to taking the ketamine.  Twice, even (or maybe three times, as her sworn statement is a bit hard to follow as to exactly how many times she took the drug).  There is, under the law (in New York) a very significant distinction between a person who is forced or tricked into consuming a mind altering drug and a person who voluntarily consumes it.

Second, according to Jane Doe's voluntary and sworn 2024 statement, the frat guys were also taking this "mind altering drug."

Third, if you are headed toward an implication that the drug rendered her incapable of giving consent, such that any sexual contact was nonconsensual, the same must be said about the frat guys.  She had sex with them while they supposedly were also lacking the capacity to consent.  I don't see much daylight between "She was too blotto to consent to sex that night" and "The seven frat boys, or some of them, were too blotto to consent to sex that night."  And we can't say either of these things in New York, which has a "voluntary intoxication" law.

Fourth, per the DA's report, I don't think we can say she took the Ketamine prior to the sexual contact.  Jane Doe's 2024 statement is ambiguous:

Quote

Male Number 2 “asked [Jane Doe] if she wanted to do more Ketamine.” At that, Jane Doe remembered “that [she] had taken Ketamine at some point on the couch with [Male Number 1 and Male Number 2] during this night” but she could not remember “where or when that took place.”  

Jane Doe thought that she “had already done Ketamine once so why not do it a second time.” “At that point, [Male Number 2] poured a line of Ketamine on his erect $%^#&, implying for [her] to snort the line. [Jane Doe] snorted the line of Ketamine, which was a heavy amount of Ketamine.”

The foregoing conversation about Ketamine came after Jane Doe had - by her own account - consented to and participated in two "threesomes" with various frat guys.

Fifth, Jane Doe's 2024 account does not claim that she was forced to take the ketamine, either the first time she took it for the second time.

Sixth, after this "Male Number 4" “asked [Jane Doe] if they all could do drugs off of [her] perfect body,” and "Jane Doe responded, 'Sure,'" and they did.

Seventh, after that she was propositioned for a "foursome" and said no, then she took more Ketamine and participated in a third threesome, with no indication in her 2024 statement that she was forced to do either.  

Eighth, Jane Doe's 2024 statement was voluntary and provided to law enforcement.  From the DA's statement:

Quote

While I generally refrain from commenting publicly on criminal investigations, the community outrage stemming from the incomplete news and social media coverage requires that I provide an answer to why the investigation resulted in a lack of criminal charges. Before I discuss the specific facts and reasons that went into this decision, I want to provide the answer in the most basic and understandable form: 

Jane Doe’s sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual. My office obviously did not and could not have based our November 2024 decision on the allegations in a civil lawsuit that would not be filed until nearly two years later. Furthermore, I have never been contacted by Jane Doe’s attorneys. Not to inform me the original statement was inaccurate and not to ask me to reconsider our decision. Rather, I reached out to Jane Doe’s attorneys after the lawsuit was filed to understand the discrepancy between the original statement and the lawsuit’s allegations and the proper path forward in light of the lawsuit’s allegations. 
...
As I stated earlier, the above facts {quoted from Jane Doe's 2024 statement} are not conclusions made by our office. The above facts were provided directly from Jane Doe’s statement and we assumed them to be true for purposes of our legal analysis below.

"Jane Doe’s {voluntary} sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual."

I think this needs to be acknowledged and addressed.  I think you are unable or unwilling to do this.

Ninth, the DA went on to address the New York statute (which pertains to the third point above) :

Quote

Under New York State Penal Law 130.05, every sexual assault offense requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual act was committed without consent of the victim. As it relates to this case, lack of consent can result from 1) forcible compulsion by the actor, 2) mental incapacitation of the victim, 3) physical helplessness of the victim, or 4) with certain criminal charges where the victim clearly expressed that she did not consent to the act.  See N.Y. Penal Law 130.05. 

Under New York State Law, “forcible compulsion” requires proof of the use of physical force to compel someone to engage in sexual conduct.  The facts provided by Jane Doe’s statement do not allege that any person used physical force to compel Jane Doe to engage in sexual conduct.  

Under New York State Law, “mental incapacitation” occurs when a victim is rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct due to the administration of a drug without her consent. The facts provided by Jane Doe’s statement do not allege that she was either rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct or that any drug was administered to her without her consent. 

"The facts provided by Jane Doe’s statement do not allege that she was either rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct or that any drug was administered to her without her consent."

This "loophole" is, I think, intentional.  If it can be used to charge a man with rape because he had sex with a woman while she was voluntarily drunk, then the reverse must also hold.  I'm not sure legislators want to see that outcome, which I think is why this provisions exists in some form in the laws of 19 states.

I think this stuff needs to be acknowledged and addressed.  I think you are unable or unwilling to do this.  I think you instead are electing to disregard huge swaths of the facts - including facts taken from Jane Doe's own voluntary and sworn statement to law enforcement - so as to isolate and decontextualize the events you do want to address.  As follows:

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

After taking this drug her “friend” texts 50 of his closest buddies that she is sexually available. Do you disagree with these facts?

No.  I think you are mischaracterizing by omission.  A lot.

I don't know exactly when the text went out.  Was is before her three consensual (by her 2024 account) threesomes?  After the first?  The second?  The third?

Was it after she said no to a foursome (between the second and third threesomes)?

Nobody denies that a frat guy sent out a repulsive text, or that sex was being treated that night like a commodity, or merely an itch to scratch, or that everyone was ingesting booze and alcohol.

The question here is consent.  Under both the law and the facts alleged by Jane Doe in her voluntary and sworn 2024 statement, Jane Doe "did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual."

As I have said before: Must these messages be read as an announcement of sexual assault?  Candidly and clinically, I'm not sure.  They can also be read as an invitation to join sex that is already underway, framed as the woman being available. 

I think this needs to be acknowledged and addressed.  I think you are unable or unwilling to do this.

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

To me, these facts alone are at the very least rape adjacent behavior.

Would that include Jane Doe's behavior?  If she was too blotto to consent to sex with the frat guys, then why can't the same be said about the frat guys being incapable of giving consent to her?

Was her conduct "rape adjacent behavior?"  If not, why not?

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think these facts alone are so reprehensible, that these young men deserve 100 percent of the shame and scorn sent their way.

I agree the behavior that night was disgusting.  Full stop.

The difference, I think, is that I think I include Jane Doe's behavior in that assessment, and you do not.

I would really like to understand your theory of culpability here, and how that theory would not apply with equal utility to Jane Doe.

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think that these types of behaviors should be discouraged and public scorn is one of the best tools to do so. 

Do you think Jane Doe deserves "public scorn?"  By her own 2024 account, she had sex with guys blotto from booze and Special K, as was she.  If she was incapable of giving consent, so were they.

Sexual assault is a terrible thing.  If it happened, those found culpable should be severely punished.  The point I think you do not want to address is that your reasoning would seem to apply to inculpating Jane Doe.

Sexual licentiousness is a terrible thing, as is recreational substance abuse.

I do appreciate your comments here.  I hope we can continue to have a substantive discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 8 by smac97

[Calm]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

me, these facts alone are at the very least rape adjacent behavior.

Even if she willing got into it, told him this is what she wanted to do (which would be insane just because of risk of physical injury/infection) before she took the drug, he had knowledge that she was under the influence of a mind altering drug and at that point could not give consent.  Iow, he needed to consider she might not be able to articulate “no” if she changed her mind (such as when it became painful or one of the guys repulsed her for some reason if you want to actually believe she was into speed sex).  I don’t see how from that point on it’s anything but non consensual sex.

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Third, if you are headed toward an implication that the drug rendered her incapable of giving consent, such that any sexual contact was nonconsensual, the same must be said about the frat guys.  She had sex with them while they lacked the capacity to consent

If they can read the text and make their way to the room, it seems they had enough presence of mind at that point to give consent even if they lost it later.

Edited October 8 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Even if she willing got into it, told him this is what she wanted to do (which would be insane just because of risk of physical injury/infection) before she took the drug, he had knowledge that she was under the influence of a mind altering drug and at that point could not give consent.  Iow, he needed to consider she might not be able to articulate “no” if she changed her mind (such as when it became painful or one of the guys repulsed her for some reason if you want to actually believe she was into speed sex).  

I am curious if the "needed to consider" element of this goes both ways.  Everyone was blotto from booze and Special K.  Everyone knew everyone else was blotto, it seems.  If so, did Jane Doe need to consider that the young men "might not be able to articulate 'no'" if they changed their minds?

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don’t see how from that point on it’s anything but non consensual sex.

Same question here.  Was it possibly "non consensual sex" for the young men as well as Jane Doe?  If not, why not?  What differentiates Jane Doe?  Per the 2024 statement (voluntary and sworn by by Jane Doe), they were all consenting to booze and Special K.  

Also, what are your thoughts about the "voluntary intoxication" law in New York? 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 8 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Quote

Third, if you are headed toward an implication that the drug rendered her incapable of giving consent, such that any sexual contact was nonconsensual, the same must be said about the frat guys.  She had sex with them while they lacked the capacity to consent

If they can read the text and make their way to the room, it seems they had enough presence of mind at that point to give consent even if they lost it later.

We don't know if any of the seven men went into the room in response to the text.

I'm not sure what you mean by "presence of mind."  Under the New York law, it looks like everybody was voluntarily intoxicated.  That does not itself mean consent was absent, only that the lack of consent cannot be imputed by law.

Meanwhile, Jane Doe - by her own narrative - had enough presence of mind to consent to drinking alcohol, consuming Special K, and participating in multiple instances of group sex.

"Jane Doe’s sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual."

"The facts provided by Jane Doe’s statement do not allege that she was either rendered incapable of controlling her own conduct or that any drug was administered to her without her consent."

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

I personally don’t care if she signed a legal binding contract saying that she was interested in having group sex with 12 men and a monkey. I find every man who participated in this activity to be morally corrupt and deserves to be dragged.  This is the way we demonstrate zero tolerance for this behavior. I’m OK with that.

Edited October 8 by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

How might this world evolve if somehow, our culture was one that when women announced they were available for intoxicated group rape, that EVERY man said no? How would women see themselves differently in that world? I can’t imagine.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I personally don’t care if she signed a legal binding contract saying that she was interested in having group sex with 12 men and a monkey. I find every man who participated in this activity to be morally corrupt and deserves to be dragged.  This is the way we demonstrate zero tolerance for this behavior. I’m OK with that.

Said it great.  I think the same way.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I can’t imagine.  

Sad that our world is so far from that so many women can’t conceive how that would feel.

[Calm]

I do believe there is behaviour that is so self destructive without any possibility of positive outcome/benefit for that individual that someone should be judged incompetent and incapable of consent if engaging in it.  With legal consequences for aiding and abetting such behaviours.  If we can do it for suicide, which can be a mercy in some cases, surely something as dangerous as unsupervised drunken group sex could be considered as such (I bet no one was carded as “clean” in this case and it appears condoms we’re not required).

Not saying the government should be the one deciding what’s consensual adults and what is incompetence.  I think medical/mental professionals experienced with the fallout with feedback from caregivers and victims should. 

Edited October 9 by Calm

[blackstrap]

Newest text messages are problematic.

[MustardSeed]

32 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Newest text messages are problematic.

Boy howdy are they disturbing. 

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am curious if the "needed to consider" element of this goes both ways.  Everyone was blotto from booze and Special K.  Everyone knew everyone else was blotto, it seems.  If so, did Jane Doe need to consider that the young men "might not be able to articulate 'no'" if they changed their minds?

Do you seriously need an anatomy lesson in order to see how very unlikely that equivalence is?

Well, I suppose someone has to tell you sometime. You see smac when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much……

…..and when the mommy and daddy decide to expand this and invite other people to join…..

…..realistically two at a time with each woman due to limits of flexibility……..

……and a woman would be less likely to be able to initiate if out of her mind on drugs.

I also doubt the guys were as drunk and/or drugged out as the victim. Ketamine massively inhibits libido. Alcohol degrades”performance”.

Your attempt to make those who planned this rapefest as somehow morally equivalent to the victim is disgusting and misogynistic.

Edited October 9 by The Nehor

[smac97]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I am curious if the "needed to consider" element of this goes both ways.  Everyone was blotto from booze and Special K.  Everyone knew everyone else was blotto, it seems.  If so, did Jane Doe need to consider that the young men "might not be able to articulate 'no'" if they changed their minds?

Do you seriously need an anatomy lesson in order to see how very unlikely that equivalence is?

I hope you reconsider this response.

The question was not about anatomy. An erection is a reflex. It is not a "yes," and it is not proof that someone could have said no. Lubrication and sexual climax are reflexes too. If, as you seem to be declaring, a physiological response counts as consent, that rule could just as readily be used against a woman whose body responded during an assault she did not agree to. I am sure you would not apply your reasoning in that circumstance.

Courts do not treat that response as consent. The incapacity point is about whether a person could understand and agree, not about whose body reacted. If everyone was too impaired to agree, anatomy does not answer which of them had to stop.

Moreover, under New York law, voluntary intoxication does not automatically establish a lack of consent. Instead, it creates a widely debated framework that requires prosecutors to prove a victim was entirely "physically helpless" (such as being unconscious) to establish incapacity. If a person is conscious but heavily impaired due to substances they willingly consumed, New York's legal definition of "mental incapacitation" does not apply, as that status is strictly reserved for instances where an intoxicant was administered without their consent.

The Argument for the Status Quo: Opponents of changing these statutes—such as the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers—argue that broadening the law could severely compromise due process. They contend that without objective boundaries, the law fails to provide clear guidance on exactly when a partner transitions from being legally "intoxicated" to legally "incapable" of agreeing to sex. The core concern is criminalizing ambiguous, consensual encounters where both parties are willingly under the influence.

The Argument for Reform: Conversely, advocates and lawmakers argue that this framework creates a dangerous "voluntary intoxication loophole". They point out that under the current standard, an individual who is severely impaired but still awake can be legally exploited. Critics argue that capacity should depend entirely on a person's cognitive state at the moment of the encounter, rather than the mechanism of how they became intoxicated.

For my part, I am unsettled on how I feel the law should treat this issue.  I see merit to both sides of the debate.  My point here, though, is that the reasoning being deployed to inculpate the men - that Jane Doe was too drunk/stoned to consent to sex - is not only contravened by her own voluntary sworn 2024 statement (in which she describes consensual instances of taking drugs and participating in multiple instances of group sex), it also would seem to apply to inculpate Jane Doe for her having had sexual contact with the men when they could be said to have been incapable of giving consent.  Indeed, one of the accused has publicly stated this very point.

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Well, I suppose someone has to tell you sometime. You see smac when a mommy and a daddy love each other very much……

…..and when the mommy and daddy decide to expand this and invite other people to join…..

…..realistically two at a time with each woman due to limits of flexibility……..

……and a woman would be less likely to be able to initiate if out of her mind on drugs.

I also doubt the guys were as drunk and/or drugged out as the victim. Ketamine massively inhibits libido. Alcohol degrades ”performance”.

Your attempt to make those who planned this rapefest as somehow morally equivalent to the victim is disgusting and misogynistic.

I did not say the men were morally equivalent to her. I asked whether incapacity, as a principle, is a one-way rule. Those are different claims. Calling the question misogynistic does not answer it.

Who could physically initiate is also not the question. The question is who could agree. Being less able to start sex while impaired does not tell you whether someone else, also impaired, could refuse it. Flexibility is not consent.

The pharmacology does not do the work you want it to do either. If ketamine suppresses libido and alcohol impairs performance, that is a fact about bodies, when the issue here is consent.  It is not a finding about who was more incapacitated or who agreed. An erection is not a blood-alcohol test. The presence or lack of one is not a consent test. The same mistake in reasoning runs the other direction: a woman's body can respond during contact she did not agree to, and that response is not a yes. Again, I am sure you do not mean to present a rule that could be construed in that way.  Performance and consent are different facts.

If the men were in fact less impaired, say so from the evidence. That is a fact question. It is not established by an anatomy joke, and it is not established by treating a reflex as proof they were sober enough to be responsible and she was not.

Some resources for your consideration:

Rape Myths (Washington University's Relationship & Sexual Violence Prevention Center

Quote

Myth: If the survivor did not physically struggle with or fight the assailant, it wasn’t really rape.

Fact: A “freeze” response is a normal response to trauma, rendering a victim unable to physically fight back. Furthermore, offenders are not looking for a fight and they use many forms of coercion, threats and manipulation to commit sexual violence. Many survivors do not fight back because they are afraid or feel compelled to cooperate in order to survive. Alcohol and other drugs are often used to incapacitate victims.
...
Myth: Men can’t be sexually assaulted.

Fact: Men are sexually assaulted. Any man can be sexually assaulted regardless of size, strength, appearance or sexual orientation.
...
Myth: A woman can not sexually assault a man.

Fact: Although the majority of perpetrators are male, people of all genders can be both victims and perpetrators of sexual violence.

Myth: Sexual arousal, including climax, erection or ejaculation during a sexual assault means the survivor wanted it or consented to the sexual contact.

Fact: Sexual arousal, including climax, erection and ejaculation are physiological responses that may result from mere physical contact or even extreme stress. These responses do not imply the survivor wanted or enjoyed the assault and do not indicate anything about sexual orientation. Some rapists are aware how arousal, climax, erection and ejaculation can confuse a victim of sexual assault; this motivates them to manipulate their victims to the point of arousal, climax, erection or ejaculation to increase their feelings of control and to discourage reporting of the crime.

Questions, emotions and physical responses after a traumatic sexual experience (Sexual Assault Center, Netherlands)

Quote

Physical responses during an assault

Freeze response during an assault - Tonic immobility

Seventy per cent of victims freeze or cooperate during sexual abuse. This is also known as the freeze response or tonic immobility. Your body freezes, rendering you incapable of doing or saying anything. You feel paralysed as it were. This is the body’s automatic response, and you have no control over it. Your body goes this survival mode to protect you. If you experienced this freeze response during the assault, you may be angry at yourself afterwards for not fighting back. Therefore, it is important to know that your body takes over in times of extreme stress and that there was nothing you could have done about it.

Sexual arousal during an assault

Many victims notice their body physically responds during a sexual assault. Boys and men can have an erection or orgasm and girls and women can get a moist vagina. This is your body’s automatic response to protect you. Your body automatically reacts to sexual stimuli, even when those stimuli are threatening. Fear and stress cause all blood vessels in the body to widen, also around your genitals. That is how an erection or moistness can occur. Having a physical response has nothing to do with arousal or permission.

Sexual arousal and orgasm in subjects who experience forced or non-consensual sexual stimulation – a review

Quote

Abstract

The review examines whether unsolicited or non-consensual sexual stimulation of either females or males can lead to unwanted sexual arousal or even to orgasm. The conclusion is that such scenarios can occur and that the induction of arousal and orgasm does not indicate that the subjects consented to the stimulation. A perpetrator’s defence simply built upon the fact that evidence of genital arousal or orgasm proves consent has no intrinsic validity and should be disregarded.

This is a very difficult topic.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 9 by smac97

[The Nehor]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I hope you reconsider this response.

The question was not about anatomy. An erection is a reflex. It is not a "yes," and it is not proof that someone could have said no. Lubrication and sexual climax are reflexes too. If, as you seem to be declaring, a physiological response counts as consent, that rule could just as readily be used against a woman whose body responded during an assault she did not agree to. I am sure you would not apply your reasoning in that circumstance.

Courts do not treat that response as consent. The incapacity point is about whether a person could understand and agree, not about whose body reacted. If everyone was too impaired to agree, anatomy does not answer which of them had to stop.

I didn’t say it did but in this context where she was the one who was much more insensate the idea that she forced herself on them is ridiculous and counters the facts of the case as reported. The more pointed thing is that in a group sex encounter it is very difficult for one person to assault or  rape two people at once especially for an AFAB person. The whole point of my ‘edited’ explanation is to make people think about that without outright describing why because it would likely get me perma-banned from this site.

Yes, men can be raped. Orgasming is not proof of consent. It is very weird that you seem to want to make the assailants who were answering text messages about free sex with a drugged up girl into co-equal victims.

For anyone interested this is a consistently good source for information on prominent legal cases reported by lawyers and they released a video this morning on the case and the DA comes off REALLY badly:

 

[The Nehor]

Fun Fact*: Jane Doe has been doxxed online and is receiving regular death threats and threatening phone calls in general. On Tuesday she was swatted. Someone called in a false 911 call about her family’s home reporting that shots had been fired. The clear intent was that someone would get injured or killed. Police approached with weapons drawn scaring everyone and the family is now blocking out their windows and increasing security. A nice warning from all the rapists and rapist supporters that women should not try to hold men accountable for their crimes. We sure do love our misogyny don’t we? And some people say rape culture isn’t real. What clowns they must be.

*Fact is actually not fun at all

[smac97]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

The question was not about anatomy. An erection is a reflex. It is not a "yes," and it is not proof that someone could have said no. Lubrication and sexual climax are reflexes too. If, as you seem to be declaring, a physiological response counts as consent, that rule could just as readily be used against a woman whose body responded during an assault she did not agree to. I am sure you would not apply your reasoning in that circumstance.

Courts do not treat that response as consent. The incapacity point is about whether a person could understand and agree, not about whose body reacted. If everyone was too impaired to agree, anatomy does not answer which of them had to stop.

I didn’t say it did

Me: I am curious if the "needed to consider" element of this goes both ways.  Everyone was blotto from booze and Special K.  Everyone knew everyone else was blotto, it seems.  If so, did Jane Doe need to consider that the young men "might not be able to articulate 'no'" if they changed their minds?

You: Do you seriously need an anatomy lesson in order to see how very unlikely that equivalence is?

Me: I did not say the men were morally equivalent to her. I asked whether incapacity, as a principle, is a one-way rule. Those are different claims. Calling the question misogynistic does not answer it. ... Courts do not treat that response as consent. The incapacity point is about whether a person could understand and agree, not about whose body reacted. If everyone was too impaired to agree, anatomy does not answer which of them had to stop.

You: I didn’t say it did.

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

but in this context where she was the one who was much more insensate

I think you may have a partial point here. 

Per Jane Doe's voluntary and sworn statement in 2024 as quoted in the statement from the DA, she describes a mixed room, not a uniformly incapacitated one.  Some of the men were far gone. Male Number 1 passed out during the night, woke later, and said he wanted sex again as "redemption for passing out." Sex continued beside him while he was out. The same account has some of the men struggling to stay conscious and dry-heaving so they would not vomit, while the group was snorting ketamine off one another and drinking.  

Others were, per her account, functional. Male Number 2 was participating next to the passed-out Male 1 (we don't really know his level of inebriation). Male Number 7 insulted her, apologized, grabbed her face, and kissed her (again, level of inebriation is not clear from her statement). She backed away and stopped him. Another man then came in and shut the scene down. When she later said she was tired, the two men still with her stopped. 

So the DA's excerpts provisionally support a "some blotto, some less so" assessment.  We don't really know, though. They do not say all seven were blacked out, and they do not say the men were sober. The office's charging conclusion was about her 2024 statement: voluntary, conscious, and consensual, and not a claim that she was unconscious and helpless.

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

the idea that she forced herself on them is ridiculous and counters the facts of the case as reported.

Sexual assault without "force" happens all the time, particularly in the context of a person with diminished capacity due to alcohol or drugs.

Further, nobody has suggested that "she forced herself on them."  Rather, from her 2024 statement, the DA concluded: "Jane Doe’s sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual."

She did not allege force against her in 2024 (except perhaps some conduct by "Male Number 2," with whom she - according to her own statement - thereafter participated in a group sex session).

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The more pointed thing is that in a group sex encounter it is very difficult for one person to assault or rape two people at once especially for an AFAB person.

Not sure what any of this has to to with lack of consent due to voluntary intoxication.  Again, without more, voluntary intoxication does not establish a lack of consent.

Again, if Jane Doe's intoxication rendered her incapable of consent, then why can't the same be said about the men (or some of them), who were also blotto?

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The whole point of my ‘edited’ explanation is to make people think about that without outright describing why because it would likely get me perma-banned from this site.

This seems to be an implicit "men cannot be sexually assaulted" proposition.  If so, I respectfully disagree with it.  Man can be sexually assaulted due to lack of consent.  From one of the resources I provided earlier:

Quote

Myth: Men can’t be sexually assaulted.

Fact: Men are sexually assaulted. Any man can be sexually assaulted regardless of size, strength, appearance or sexual orientation.
...
Myth: A woman can not sexually assault a man.

Fact: Although the majority of perpetrators are male, people of all genders can be both victims and perpetrators of sexual violence.

I think this needs to be addressed.

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yes, men can be raped. Orgasming is not proof of consent.

I am glad we clarified this point.  

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is very weird that you seem to want to make the assailants who were answering text messages about free sex with a drugged up girl into co-equal victims.

You are begging the question here.

You reference "assailants" (the men) and "victim" (Jane Doe) as if culpability has been established.  You do not address Jane Doe's 2024 statement, which "described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual."

You also do not address the New York law regarding "voluntary intoxication."

You also do not address the point I have raised, namely, that if we are going with a "Jane Doe was incapable of consenting to sexual contact because she was blotto" position, then it seems that same line of reasoning can be applied to some of the men involved, who were also blotto.

All the more reason to set aside emotionalisms and reflexive mobocratic outrage and give the process some time to go through the evidence in a clinical and dispassionate and lawful way.

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

For anyone interested this is a consistently good source for information on prominent legal cases reported by lawyers and they released a video this morning on the case and the DA comes off REALLY badly:

 

A notable excerpt, at the :12 mark: "According to a lawsuit filed last month in New York state court..." 

I previously said this to SU: My sense is that, for you, an allegation of sexual assault is, alone, definitive proof for itself.  A woman said it.  It must be so.  Any questions = "defending the rapists" and "defending... rape culture."

It seems like you have the same sentiment.  Jane Doe said X in her civil lawsuit, ergo X is necessarily and indisputably true and correct, and anyone who questions that is, as SU put it, "defending the rapists" and "defending... rape culture."

I don't think that is a reasonable position.

I am curious how you view her lawsuit relative to her voluntary sworn statement from 2024.

Also, the video fudges quite about about the timeline: "Hours later {after the alleged assault} the campus was gossiping about a potential gang rape at a frat house.  The woman went to the ER.  She reported the attack to the university police.  She sat for two days of interviews with the campus cops."

This makes it sounds like Jane Doe went to the ER and police "hours" after the alleged October 19 attack.  She went to the ER on October 22 for a UTI, which she says told them had occurred in "a traumatic way."  She went to an ER on November 7 and asked for a rape kit (two weeks after the incident), and  reported the issue to police weeks later on November 8, and she reported the issue to Cornell's Title IX office on January 14, nearly three months later.

At 1:05, the video says the prosecutor "admitted that he had never read the transcript of her interview with police," and also that "if what is circulating online is true, those fraternity members would be in prison right now."  As to the second point, he is stating something that is axiomatic.  "If what is circulating online is true..."  "If."  We get rid of the "if" by examining the evidence.  Clinically and dispassionately and fairly, and not emotionally and mobocratically.

As to the first point, the video characterizes the DA has not having "read" the transcripts, as if they had been made available to him but he simply hadn't bothered to read them.  Per this article:

Quote

Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten says he never saw a transcript of a conversation between an alleged rape victim and investigators showing what she told Cornell University campus police before his office decided not to bring charges.

The transcript, which CBS News New York exclusively obtained from a source, shows the victim told campus police more than three weeks after the alleged assault,  "I can say with 100% confidence I was raped."

"I'm going to follow up on this because this is news to me," Van Houten told CBS News New York on Tuesday about the transcript.

Cornell conducted an internal investigation into the alleged fraternity gang rape that occurred Oct. 19-20, 2024, and led to expulsions, suspensions and other sanctions. Criminal charges, however, were not pursued, and prosecutors have now reopened their criminal investigation as the law enforcement response has come under new scrutiny.

Van Houten said his decision not to bring charges was based on the contents of a 2024 statement signed by Jane Doe, the alleged victim.

When Van Houten was told by CBS News New York's Mahsa Saeidi that Jane Doe had said she was confident she was raped, Van Houten said, "That wasn't information that I had, first of all. Second of all, that is a legal conclusion."

"If she had said those words, we certainly would want to have explored that more," Van Houten continued. "Like I said, that wasn't provided to me."

The DA said he'd seek the transcript and follow up with Cornell Police.

"Nobody knows this information about the transcript and that gives me something to really dig into because that changes the landscape for me," Van Houten said.

More here:

Quote

Prosecutors in upstate New York are defending their decision not to bring charges in 2024 after an alleged "gang rape" at a Cornell University fraternity. 

Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten described the allegations as “morally disturbing” but argued that the facts he knew at the time did not support a prosecution. 

“If what was said on social media about this case was true, those fraternity members would be in prison right now,” Van Houten told ABC News.

Van Houten argued that Jane Doe’s account of the incident from 2024 suggested that she consented to the sexual activity. He said that she did not withdraw her consent, and that when she raised concerns, the fraternity members “stopped and did not pursue what they were doing.” 

“She clearly consented in the beginning, and there was never any indication that she changed that to the things that she participated in,” he said. “There is a disconnect in the sense of how the community and how social media has understood this to have happened. If at any point Jane Doe had said, ‘I don't consent to this anymore,’ or in those words, or in any form of communication. If there had been continued sexual activity, contact by these individuals, that would be a crime. But that's not what was alleged in her statement.” 

Van Houten acknowledged that his office did not examine a photo of the fraternity’s Snapchat group, but he argued that the messages do not change his view of the case. 

He called the messages, "disgusting and vulgar and immoral."

"But the question that we analyzed was: Did Jane Doe consent to what happened, and was she unable to consent?” he said. “I'm not clear on exactly how that was given to us, or if anyone here looked at it. That was not critical to our analysis, as I mentioned earlier. The issue was her consent, and if you take that Snapchat being vile and crude and vulgar, that did not have any relevance to the issue of whether Jane Doe consented to what was happening,”  Van Houten said.

The video is apparently playing fast and loose with the facts.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 9 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Fun Fact*: Jane Doe has been doxxed online and is receiving regular death threats and threatening phone calls in general.  On Tuesday she was swatted. Someone called in a false 911 call about her family’s home reporting that shots had been fired. The clear intent was that someone would get injured or killed. Police approached with weapons drawn scaring everyone and the family is now blocking out their windows and increasing security.

That is utterly wrong.  

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A nice warning from all the rapists and rapist supporters that women should not try to hold men accountable for their crimes. We sure do love our misogyny don’t we? And some people say rape culture isn’t real. What clowns they must be.

*Fact is actually not fun at all

I think we need to set aside emotionalisms and mobocratic outrage, uphold the rule of law, let those with training and expertise evaluate the evidence in a clinical and dispassionate way, and pray - both civilly and religiously - that justice is sought and achieved.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Me: I am curious if the "needed to consider" element of this goes both ways.  Everyone was blotto from booze and Special K.  Everyone knew everyone else was blotto, it seems.  If so, did Jane Doe need to consider that the young men "might not be able to articulate 'no'" if they changed their minds?

You: Do you seriously need an anatomy lesson in order to see how very unlikely that equivalence is?

Me: I did not say the men were morally equivalent to her. I asked whether incapacity, as a principle, is a one-way rule. Those are different claims. Calling the question misogynistic does not answer it. ... Courts do not treat that response as consent. The incapacity point is about whether a person could understand and agree, not about whose body reacted. If everyone was too impaired to agree, anatomy does not answer which of them had to stop.

You: I didn’t say it did.

I think you may have a partial point here. 

Per Jane Doe's voluntary and sworn statement in 2024 as quoted in the statement from the DA, she describes a mixed room, not a uniformly incapacitated one.  Some of the men were far gone. Male Number 1 passed out during the night, woke later, and said he wanted sex again as "redemption for passing out." Sex continued beside him while he was out. The same account has some of the men struggling to stay conscious and dry-heaving so they would not vomit, while the group was snorting ketamine off one another and drinking.  

Others were, per her account, functional. Male Number 2 was participating next to the passed-out Male 1 (we don't really know his level of inebriation). Male Number 7 insulted her, apologized, grabbed her face, and kissed her (again, level of inebriation is not clear from her statement). She backed away and stopped him. Another man then came in and shut the scene down. When she later said she was tired, the two men still with her stopped. 

So the DA's excerpts provisionally support a "some blotto, some less so" assessment.  We don't really know, though. They do not say all seven were blacked out, and they do not say the men were sober. The office's charging conclusion was about her 2024 statement: voluntary, conscious, and consensual, and not a claim that she was unconscious and helpless.

Sexual assault without "force" happens all the time, particularly in the context of a person with diminished capacity due to alcohol or drugs.

Further, nobody has suggested that "she forced herself on them."  Rather, from her 2024 statement, the DA concluded: "Jane Doe’s sworn statement in November of 2024 did not allege that she was drugged against her will or gang raped. On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual."

She did not allege force against her in 2024 (except perhaps some conduct by "Male Number 2," with whom she - according to her own statement - thereafter participated in a group sex session).

Not sure what any of this has to to with lack of consent due to voluntary intoxication.  Again, without more, voluntary intoxication does not establish a lack of consent.

Again, if Jane Doe's intoxication rendered her incapable of consent, then why can't the same be said about the men (or some of them), who were also blotto?

This seems to be an implicit "men cannot be sexually assaulted" proposition.  If so, I respectfully disagree with it.  Man can be sexually assaulted due to lack of consent.  From one of the resources I provided earlier:

I think this needs to be addressed.

I am glad we clarified this point.  

You are begging the question here.

You reference "assailants" (the men) and "victim" (Jane Doe) as if culpability has been established.  You do not address Jane Doe's 2024 statement, which "described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual."

You also do not address the New York law regarding "voluntary intoxication."

You also do not address the point I have raised, namely, that if we are going with a "Jane Doe was incapable of consenting to sexual contact because she was blotto" position, then it seems that same line of reasoning can be applied to some of the men involved, who were also blotto.

All the more reason to set aside emotionalisms and reflexive mobocratic outrage and give the process some time to go through the evidence in a clinical and dispassionate and lawful way.

A notable excerpt, at the :12 mark: "According to a lawsuit filed last month in New York state court..." 

I previously said this to SU: My sense is that, for you, an allegation of sexual assault is, alone, definitive proof for itself.  A woman said it.  It must be so.  Any questions = "defending the rapists" and "defending... rape culture."

It seems like you have the same sentiment.  Jane Doe said X in her civil lawsuit, ergo X is necessarily and indisputably true and correct, and anyone who questions that is, as SU put it, "defending the rapists" and "defending... rape culture."

I don't think that is a reasonable position.

I am curious how you view her lawsuit relative to her voluntary sworn statement from 2024.

Also, the video fudges quite about about the timeline: "Hours later {after the alleged assault} the campus was gossiping about a potential gang rape at a frat house.  The woman went to the ER.  She reported the attack to the university police.  She sat for two days of interviews with the campus cops."

This makes it sounds like Jane Doe went to the ER and police "hours" after the alleged October 19 attack.  She went to the ER on October 22 for a UTI, which she says told them had occurred in "a traumatic way."  She went to an ER on November 7 and asked for a rape kit (two weeks after the incident), and  reported the issue to police weeks later on November 8, and she reported the issue to Cornell's Title IX office on January 14, nearly three months later.

At 1:05, the video says the prosecutor "admitted that he had never read the transcript of her interview with police," and also that "if what is circulating online is true, those fraternity members would be in prison right now."  As to the second point, he is stating something that is axiomatic.  "If what is circulating online is true..."  "If."  We get rid of the "if" by examining the evidence.  Clinically and dispassionately and fairly, and not emotionally and mobocratically.

As to the first point, the video characterizes the DA has not having "read" the transcripts, as if they had been made available to him but he simply hadn't bothered to read them.  Per this article:

More here:

The video is apparently playing fast and loose with the facts.

Thanks,

-Smac

The video did lay out the timeline you say they omitted and I suspect the DA is playing ‘fast and loose’ with the facts.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

That is utterly wrong.  

https://people.com/cornell-jane-doe-s-family-swatted-at-home-12164905

Not according to her attorney.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think we need to set aside emotionalisms and mobocratic outrage, uphold the rule of law, let those with training and expertise evaluate the evidence in a clinical and dispassionate way, and pray - both civilly and religiously - that justice is sought and achieved.

Which you did just now by saying that mobocratic outrage was “utterly wrong”. You dismiss the mobocratic injury/murder attempt on the female victim and then tut about people being upset at the male perpetrators who, even if this isn’t something that can be criminally prosecuted, are still RAPISTS. She appears to have consented to the first two guys…..dubiously. Then those guys invited more guys in on the fun. You know who does that? Big Rapey Raper McRapersons. And those offended by the idea that they might be held accountable are targeting the victim with violence…..repeatedly. This is not new. This happens in many publicized sexual assault cases. The misogynists act to intimidate, silence, harm, or kill the victim. IT BAD. IT RAPE CULTURE. Please stop carrying water for them. K thx bye

[smac97]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The video did lay out the timeline you say they omitted and I suspect the DA is playing ‘fast and loose’ with the facts.

Hence the need to dispassionately evaluate the evidence.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Quote

Jane Doe has been doxxed online and is receiving regular death threats and threatening phone calls in general.  On Tuesday she was swatted. Someone called in a false 911 call about her family’s home reporting that shots had been fired. The clear intent was that someone would get injured or killed. Police approached with weapons drawn scaring everyone and the family is now blocking out their windows and increasing security.

That is utterly wrong.

https://people.com/cornell-jane-doe-s-family-swatted-at-home-12164905

Not according to her attorney.

You misunderstand.  By "utterly wrong" I meant "Swatting was an utterly wrong thing to do."  I was condemning what happened to her family, not disputing it.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I think we need to set aside emotionalisms and mobocratic outrage, uphold the rule of law, let those with training and expertise evaluate the evidence in a clinical and dispassionate way, and pray - both civilly and religiously - that justice is sought and achieved.

Which you did just now by saying that mobocratic outrage was “utterly wrong”.

Not at all.  I join you in condemning what happened to her family.  Unreservedly.  That was an utterly wrong thing for a person to have done.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You dismiss the mobocratic injury/murder attempt on the female victim

I did not.  You have materially misunderstood my statement.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

and then tut about people being upset at the male perpetrators who, even if this isn’t something that can be criminally prosecuted, are still RAPISTS.

Part of the challenge in modern discourse is that we are too inclined toward using provocative and inflammatory terms that really deserve to retain their original meaning and purpose.  "Nazi."  "Fascist."  "Rapist."

Rhetorical overuse cheapens and dilutes the meaning of these words.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

She appears to have consented to the first two guys…..dubiously.

I think it's hard to construe her 2024 statement in the way that you want.  She does not describe any nonconsensual conduct (apart from her having swatted the hand of Male Number 2, just prior to engaging in a threesome with him). 

By her own statement (voluntary, sworn, and heavily modified by her), she was "pretty ok with having this {first} threesome."  

As to the second threesome:

Quote

Male Number 3 then knocked on the door of the room. Jane Doe “decided to let him in because it was his room.” She “opened the door” and let Male Number 3 in the room. Male Number 3 “introduced himself to [Jane Doe] and reached out to shake her hand.” “When [Jane Doe] made contact with [Male Number 3’s] hand, [Male Number 3] pulled [Jane Doe] into him and [they] began making out. While [Male Number 3] was kissing [her], [Male Number 2] began groping [her].” Eventually, “[Male Number 2, Male Number 3, and Jane Doe] would end up on the bed next to where [Male Number 1] was sleeping and [they] began to have a threesome.”  

I don't see any indication from her statement that this was a nonconsensual incident.

The third threesome:

Quote

Eventually, “[Male Number 1] and [Male Number 4 ] ushered [Jane Doe] out of the room brought [her] upstairs to a small room.” Male Number 1 stated, “Let’s do more Ketamine.” Jane Doe “remembered snorting more Ketamine” and “remembered feeling extremely high.” Male Number 1 “said he wanted to have sex again because he wanted redemption for passing out earlier in the night.” Jane Doe initially stated that she was tired and asked Male Number 1, “What happened to just you and me?” Jane Doe could not remember how it started but she then engaged in a threesome with Male Number 1 and Male Number 4 involving oral sex and vaginal sex. She described her level of intoxication as “8 out of 10” at this point. “The threesome continued until at some point, around 5:45am, [Jane Doe] said [she] was tired and needed to turn in. At that point, both guys stopped the threesome with [her] as far as [she] can remember.” 

Again, no indication of a lack of consent.  The only reference to consent is that when she said she "was tired," the two men "stopped the threesome with [her]."

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Then those guys invited more guys in on the fun.

I would like to see the evidence for that.  By "invited more guys" I assume you are referencing the text message.  That was sent by Jonathan Newell, not all 7 of the accused.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You know who does that? Big Rapey Raper McRapersons.

This is a difficult topic.  I think we need to address it with decorum and sobriety, and not with inflammatory language, emotionalisms and mobocratic rage.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And those offended by the idea that they might be held accountable are targeting the victim with violence…..repeatedly.

I utterly condemn any harassment or threat of this sort.  

I think this story has created ample grounds for skepticism as to the veracity of Jane Doe's claims.  That's no excuse for abuse or harassment of any sort.

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This is not new. This happens in many publicized sexual assault cases. The misogynists act to intimidate, silence, harm, or kill the victim. IT BAD. IT RAPE CULTURE. Please stop carrying water for them. K thx bye

Again: I think we need to set aside emotionalisms and mobocratic outrage, uphold the rule of law, let those with training and expertise evaluate the evidence in a clinical and dispassionate way, and pray - both civilly and religiously - that justice is sought and achieved.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 10 by smac97

[The Nehor]

On 10/9/2026 at 6:42 PM, smac97 said:

Part of the challenge in modern discourse is that we are too inclined toward using provocative and inflammatory terms that really deserve to retain their original meaning and purpose.  "Nazi."  "Fascist."  "Rapist."

Rhetorical overuse cheapens and dilutes the meaning of these words.

This isn’t rhetorical overuse. It is calling a rapist a rapist because he raped someone. Rapists, bigots, and fascists are all real things, actual people that are these things. If you reflexively assume it is always hyperbole maybe that is an even bigger problem than the potential for overuse.

On 10/9/2026 at 6:42 PM, smac97 said:

I think it's hard to construe her 2024 statement in the way that you want.  She does not describe any nonconsensual conduct (apart from her having swatted the hand of Male Number 2, just prior to engaging in a threesome with him). 

By her own statement (voluntary, sworn, and heavily modified by her), she was "pretty ok with having this {first} threesome."  

As to the second threesome:

I don't see any indication from her statement that this was a nonconsensual incident.

The third threesome:

Again, no indication of a lack of consent.  The only reference to consent is that when she said she "was tired," the two men "stopped the threesome with [her]."

I would like to see the evidence for that.  By "invited more guys" I assume you are referencing the text message.  That was sent by Jonathan Newell, not all 7 of the accused.

This is a difficult topic.  I think we need to address it with decorum and sobriety, and not with inflammatory language, emotionalisms and mobocratic rage.

Swatting someone away is a “no”. Being so insensate that all she remembers is being tired is a “no”. The text message was sent by one person. Others of them showed up. That is rapey behavior and it is RAPE to proceed without an enthusiastic “yes”. This isn’t hard. They knew they were taking advantage of her condition like a lot of rapists do. This is often how rape works. You seem to be trying to define the concept of rape out of existence. 

On 10/9/2026 at 6:42 PM, smac97 said:

I utterly condemn any harassment or threat of this sort.  

Rape apologists are what fuel this kind of conduct. I find your condemnation facile.

On 10/9/2026 at 6:42 PM, smac97 said:

I think this story has created ample grounds for skepticism as to the veracity of Jane Doe's claims. 

I don’t. 

On 10/9/2026 at 6:42 PM, smac97 said:

Again: I think we need to set aside emotionalisms and mobocratic outrage, uphold the rule of law, let those with training and expertise evaluate the evidence in a clinical and dispassionate way, and pray - both civilly and religiously - that justice is sought and achieved.

We are talking about Cornell University where protesting on behalf of Gaza gets you deported while raping someone gets you a remedial essay assignment on why what you did was wrong. I won’t hold my breath expecting any form of justice.

And seeking justice from God would involve *checks Old Testament* paying her father a fine and having the first guy marry her assuming she was a virgin. If not a virgin…..no crime committed. So not going to hold my breath there either.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Swatting someone away is a “no”. Being so insensate that all she remembers is being tired is a “no”. The text message was sent by one person. Others of them showed up. That is rapey behavior and it is RAPE to proceed without an enthusiastic “yes”. This isn’t hard. They knew they were taking advantage of her condition like a lot of rapists do. This is often how rape works.

Group sex under the influence is extreme enough behaviour potentially dangerous to a woman’s health, both emotional and physical (I don’t know if it’s as emotionally damaging to men given the cultural lessons have been so different for them for eons) that a (preferably written) recorded in some way contract detailing acceptable behaviour (preferably signed) before taking anything mind altering is probably the only thing I see as morally removing the rape aspect.  
 

Quoting this comment as I really, really agree with this, but can’t give a rep point because I see the personal stuff as too far….which happens with a lot of your posts.  Not telling you to change them.  I don’t feel the need to agree with everything I read.  The only reason I don’t give thumbs up when there’s personal stuff is I am in a mood to be concerned someone might assume I agree with that.  Sometimes I will assume people know me well enough to know when I wouldn’t support such speculation or judgment and rep even with personal stuff.  My confidence in others understanding varies over time.

[Calm]

Nvm…mind is wandering too far afield, spaced on where I was, I guess, lol.  Wasn’t meant to post here.

Edited October 12 by Calm

[smac97]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Part of the challenge in modern discourse is that we are too inclined toward using provocative and inflammatory terms that really deserve to retain their original meaning and purpose.  "Nazi."  "Fascist."  "Rapist."

Rhetorical overuse cheapens and dilutes the meaning of these words.

This isn’t rhetorical overuse. It is calling a rapist a rapist because he raped someone. Rapists, bigots, and fascists are all real things, actual people that are these things. If you reflexively assume it is always hyperbole maybe that is an even bigger problem than the potential for overuse.

There is "use" and then there is "overuse."

A person who subscribes to Nazi ideology may well be described by that term.  Same goes for persons who subscribe to the tenets of fascism.  A "rapist" is someone who has committed rape.  These, then, are all proper uses of these terms.

Then there is "overuse," in which "Nazi" and "Fascist" become merely pejorative, not descriptive.  

Whether the Cornell controversy involves "rape" is something that needs to be assessed.  And given the seriousness of the charge, the assessment needs to be dispassionate and clinical and evidence-based.  

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Swatting someone away is a “no”.

I agree.  But then she - by her own narrative - thereafter had a threesome with the guy, with no indication that she did not consent to it.  And her narrative describes her doing that to one man, with no indication that she did not consent to the other men with whom she had sexual contact.  Also, there are allegations that Jane Doe initiated sexual contact with one of the men when he was too incapacitated to consent.  So the allegations of unconsented-to sexual contact need to be addressed.

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Being so insensate that all she remembers is being tired is a “no”.

I'm not sure "insensate" (that is, "lacking physical sensation, conscious awareness, humane feeling, or common sense") is apt here.  Her 2024 narrative has some gaps, but she is generally quite descriptive of the events of that night.  That would seem to indicate that she did have "physical sensation" and "conscious awareness."

Moreover, the New York law about voluntary intoxication may well take the actions that night out of the ambit of rape.  And if we set aside that law and speak of a lack of consent due to intoxication of any sort, then some or all of the men can make the same argument, that they were incapable of giving consent.

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The text message was sent by one person. Others of them showed up.

Per this article, one of them, Scott Kretzschmar, has stated that "after he saw a fraternity Snapchat post advertising 'free p----y' upstairs, he went in the room already filled with several of his fraternity brothers — but that he never saw the woman naked, touched her or used ketamine," and that "he did not see the accuser in distress during his brief time in the room where she says she was sexually assaulted while she was under the influence of several substances."

Who did what to whom is still very much in question, as are issues of consent and men rea.

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is rapey behavior and it is RAPE to proceed without an enthusiastic “yes”. This isn’t hard.

The same conclusory things can potentially be said about Jane Doe.  All the more reason to be circumspect, dispassionate and clinical in assessing this matter, and set aside inflammatory language, emotionalisms and mobocratic rage.

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They knew they were taking advantage of her condition like a lot of rapists do. This is often how rape works.

You are begging the question.  You are presupposing that which has yet to be demonstrated.

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You seem to be trying to define the concept of rape out of existence. 

Rape and other forms of sexual assault certainly do happen, and they are terrible.

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I utterly condemn any harassment or threat of this sort.  

Rape apologists are what fuel this kind of conduct. I find your condemnation facile.

I think your comment here is unserious, and is intended to provoke and/or silence.

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I think this story has created ample grounds for skepticism as to the veracity of Jane Doe's claims. 

I don’t. 

Because you are not assessing the matter in anything approaching a dispassionate and clinical way.  Just raw emotion and mobocratic rage.

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Again: I think we need to set aside emotionalisms and mobocratic outrage, uphold the rule of law, let those with training and expertise evaluate the evidence in a clinical and dispassionate way, and pray - both civilly and religiously - that justice is sought and achieved.

We are talking about Cornell University where protesting on behalf of Gaza gets you deported while raping someone gets you a remedial essay assignment on why what you did was wrong. I won’t hold my breath expecting any form of justice.

You are only proving my point.  Your comments are almost purely emotional.  Not reasoned.  Not evidence-based.  Not dispassionate.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Swatting someone away is a “no”. Being so insensate that all she remembers is being tired is a “no”. The text message was sent by one person. Others of them showed up. That is rapey behavior and it is RAPE to proceed without an enthusiastic “yes”. This isn’t hard. They knew they were taking advantage of her condition like a lot of rapists do. This is often how rape works.

Group sex under the influence is extreme enough behaviour potentially dangerous to a woman’s health, both emotional and physical (I don’t know if it’s as emotionally damaging to men given the cultural lessons have been so different for them for eons) that a (preferably written) recorded in some way contract detailing acceptable behaviour (preferably signed) before taking anything mind altering is probably the only thing I see as morally removing the rape aspect.  

Could you elaborate?  What if she signs the "consent form" or whatever, and thereafter withdraws her consent prior to the initiation of sexual contact?  How does the form "remove the rape aspect" in that circumstance?

Or what if she was coerced into signing the form?

Or what if she was too blotto to give consent, even written and signed?

Also, why is it that "group sex under the influence" is only "extreme" for women?  Why not the men?  Are they not also susceptible to being subjected to non-consensual contact?  STIs?

At least one of the men has accused Jane Doe of initiating sexual contact with him without his consent.  Is this "consent form" thing something that Jane Doe should have signed as well?  If not, why not?

Thanks,

-Smac