If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Student charged with an honor code violation for "intimidating" her rapist by speaking publicly   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 1269
    More: Sick, Chapel Hill, honor code, sex crimes, Office of Civil Rights, Amherst College, art fair, U.S. Department of Education, graduate students  
•       •       •

28397 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Feb 2013 at 10:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1269 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-26 11:15:11 AM  

Genevieve Marie: But that's all beside the point, and the point is that questioning someone's personal story about their rape experience in a situation where they're sharing it anonymously and not on a witness stand is not ok


I was accused of rape.  If I told my story would you be defending everything I said as staunchly?

/nevermind the fact that I in no way questioned her rape, just her envisioned social standing
 
2013-02-26 11:15:14 AM  

Genevieve Marie: And it's interesting that you equate someone who's been accused of rape with someone who's been accused of illegal downloading or lying about food contamination. Seriously? You think that's an appropriate analogy?


Again, reading comprehension. Use your eyes to read, not your emotions. I never "equated" these crimes, I'm comparing Farkers' reactions to people who are accused. On one hand it's fine and dandy to question the accuser's story, but on the other, doing so makes you "pro-rape".
 
2013-02-26 11:16:17 AM  

stiletto_the_wise: Theaetetus: You criticized a definition of rape that includes drugging and having sex with someone who told you they weren't interested. That sounds pretty pro-rape.

If you think that's a "pro-rape" statement, you need to work on your reading comprehension skills, or you're being deliberately dishonest. My comment was that that particular definition of rape includes many things that are difficult, if not impossible to prove.


And you criticized that particular definition, no? That's why you're pro-rape.
 
2013-02-26 11:16:45 AM  
Weaver95: skullkrusher:
umm... huh?
You're saying stuff but it's not making any sense.
You're stomping your feet claiming to know what the story is about and exhorting me to pay attention. Yeah, I'm paying attention. Read a few articles on it even. It is complicated yet you are getting all bothered by the fact that I am not focusing solely on one aspect of it. Sorry dude, talk to someone else then

oo, good call.  denial is always a good choice.  and making it all about you?   that's like...bonus round!  anything to avoid talking about how badly the university handled this situation, right?  'cause if I were to somehow bring the focus back onto that subject, you'd be screwed, right?

holy shiat you're terrible at this. I've said a number of times that this girl has gotten poor treatment at the hands of the school. I've put "honor court" in quotes every farking time I've typed the words. I've said that it is indefensible if the school is trying to retaliate against her for filing charges. Yet you're just gonna be dishonest 'cause if you were to somehow actually discuss shiat rather than waving your hands and pretending that you've got it all figured out if only I'd listen, you'd be screwed, right?

As I always say, you just flipped the coin dude. You didn't change, you're just wearing a new uniform



So I open Fark and I see and 800+ comment thread.  I notice it's about rape, so I pretty much expect that it's going to be some red highlighted loons (teapublican bigots) ranting back and forth with some baby-blue highlighted loons (bra-burning or tree-hugging activists).  To my surprise what I see is the same 3 or 4 baby blues smacking down every poster off my green list (intelligent, reasonable moderates) for 12 hours straight.  Granted they did smack down a few assholes that I need to add to my red list as well.

If you're this crazy that you're just attacking anyone that wonders into the thread and doesn't match your nuclear-grade radicalism and intensity with your exact same viewpoint - why the fark are you on Fark?  You obviously don't give a shiat about anyone else's views.  You're just in it to take out you blind impotent rage and bitterness on everyone else, I have to assume.

Tip: Someone believing in due process and supporting the legal principle that defendants are innocent until proven guilty and therefore deserve the same rights as everyone else until they are convicted does not make them a sociopath.
 
2013-02-26 11:17:09 AM  

stiletto_the_wise: Genevieve Marie: And it's interesting that you equate someone who's been accused of rape with someone who's been accused of illegal downloading or lying about food contamination. Seriously? You think that's an appropriate analogy?

Again, reading comprehension. Use your eyes to read, not your emotions. I never "equated" these crimes, I'm comparing Farkers' reactions to people who are accused. On one hand it's fine and dandy to question the accuser's story, but on the other, doing so makes you "pro-rape".


no, you implied that rape was no different than file trading.  which is interesting in and of itself, now that I think about it.
 
2013-02-26 11:17:09 AM  

Weaver95: I see a lot of people here blaming the victim.


The alleged victim. There was nothing presented in the article that mentioned anyone being convicted of a crime. Only an allegation.
 
2013-02-26 11:17:17 AM  

Genevieve Marie: which was a total strawman, since she declined to press charges and is protecting his identity in the press.


An honest question for you.  Given what we all know about social networking among young people, you Genevieve Marie, give us your best guess as to how many people at UNC and elsewhere know exactly who this dude is?  What do you think?  100?   500?  5,000?  Keep in mind that the harassment charge against her apparently involves her prolific facebook postings about him.  Just throw a number at us.  Your best guess.  And then tell us if it's any great consolation to him if she hasn't given the press his name.
 
2013-02-26 11:18:01 AM  

stiletto_the_wise: Genevieve Marie: And it's interesting that you equate someone who's been accused of rape with someone who's been accused of illegal downloading or lying about food contamination. Seriously? You think that's an appropriate analogy?

Again, reading comprehension. Use your eyes to read, not your emotions. I never "equated" these crimes, I'm comparing Farkers' reactions to people who are accused. On one hand it's fine and dandy to question the accuser's story, but on the other, doing so makes you "pro-rape".


Nope, what makes you pro-rape is that you think that if it's "difficult" to prove that rape occurred, then it shouldn't be in the definition of rape.
 
2013-02-26 11:19:01 AM  

stiletto_the_wise: Weaver95: I see a lot of people here blaming the victim.

The alleged victim. There was nothing presented in the article that mentioned anyone being convicted of a crime. Only an allegation.


...and the university handled that allegation poorly.  which is why the students decided to do something about it.
 
2013-02-26 11:19:21 AM  

liam76: Genevieve Marie: But that's all beside the point, and the point is that questioning someone's personal story about their rape experience in a situation where they're sharing it anonymously and not on a witness stand is not ok

I was accused of rape.  If I told my story would you be defending everything I said as staunchly?

/nevermind the fact that I in no way questioned her rape, just her envisioned social standing


stiletto_the_wise: Genevieve Marie: And it's interesting that you equate someone who's been accused of rape with someone who's been accused of illegal downloading or lying about food contamination. Seriously? You think that's an appropriate analogy?

Again, reading comprehension. Use your eyes to read, not your emotions. I never "equated" these crimes, I'm comparing Farkers' reactions to people who are accused. On one hand it's fine and dandy to question the accuser's story, but on the other, doing so makes you "pro-rape".


Doubting the story of the RIAA doesn't hurt anyone. Doubting the story of someone making a fantastical claim about a corporation also doesn't hurt anyone. Publicly doubting the personal and painful story of someone's rape because you think the unnamed rapist deserves to be staunchly defended and that a victim should be treated as a potential liar until the rapist is convicted in a court of law hurts not just that victim, but a whole hell of a lot of others who are shamed into silence.
 
2013-02-26 11:19:57 AM  

Weaver95: no, you implied that rape was no different than file trading.  which is interesting in and of itself, now that I think about it.


Now you're just being silly. You guys probably have the strongest legs on Fark, with all that conclusion jumping you do.
 
2013-02-26 11:21:01 AM  

Theaetetus: Nope, what makes you pro-rape is that you think that if it's "difficult" to prove that rape occurred, then it shouldn't be in the definition of rape.


Where did I say that it shouldn't be in the definition of rape?
 
2013-02-26 11:21:09 AM  

stiletto_the_wise: Weaver95: no, you implied that rape was no different than file trading.  which is interesting in and of itself, now that I think about it.

Now you're just being silly. You guys probably have the strongest legs on Fark, with all that conclusion jumping you do.


no, really - tell me some more about why you feel file trading is somehow equal to rape.  that's a very interesting conflation and I think it's worth further discussion.
 
2013-02-26 11:21:52 AM  

Genevieve Marie: The survivor has to consent to each stage of the exam- yes. But the process of the exam still requires collecting evidence from wherever you were touched by the rapist.


Bullshiat.

Your own link say may.  Nothing that the survivor doesn't consent to is "required.

they certainly aren't going to take the clothes off your back as you implied.


Genevieve Marie: I don't get why it's hard to understand why going through that kind of exam would be particularly traumatic right after a rape. Why you can shrug it off like "Hey, what's the big deal if you have to spend several hours at an ER going through an invasive exam if you have the right to walk away halfway through?"


Where did I say it wasn't traumatic?  Me pointitng out you were being dishoenst, repeatedly, about things that are required doesn't mean I don't think it is dishonest.

You are still depending it is an all or nothing affair wherer your choice it to "walk away" or do everything they say.

Genevieve Marie: I'm beating my head against a wall here, I know it, but have you seriously never considered what it would be like to be raped


Yeah, I have.

I'm beating my head against a wall here, but have you ever considered what intentionally telling BS stories about what will be "required" to do in order to report a rape does?
 
2013-02-26 11:22:25 AM  
Ug. Local news: Citing federal privacy laws, Moon could not speak specifically about Gambill's case but said the university "is committed to providing policies and procedures that are fair for everyone, especially about an issue that is as difficult and often involves strong opinions on both sides like sexual assault." Link

Strong opinions on BOTH SIDES about sexual assault. Those of you arguing over Weavs use of the term 'pro-rape' are being a touch pedantic. Honestly not a term I'd use, but when you have a University spokesman talking to the local news stating that there are TWO OPPOSING SIDES when it comes to views on sexual assault... as has been shown in this thread. Holy shiat. That's it. I'm stepping away now.
 
2013-02-26 11:22:57 AM  

Genevieve Marie: Doubting the story of the RIAA doesn't hurt anyone. Doubting the story of someone making a fantastical claim about a corporation also doesn't hurt anyone. Publicly doubting the personal and painful story of someone's rape because you think the unnamed rapist deserves to be staunchly defended and that a victim should be treated as a potential liar until the rapist is convicted in a court of law hurts not just that victim, but a whole hell of a lot of others who are shamed into silence.


Yet, requiring the state to prove someone's guilt is the bedrock of our justice system. So which one is the way to go? Should we treat some crimes differently?
 
2013-02-26 11:23:07 AM  

Ebbelwoi: An honest question for you.  Given what we all know about social networking among young people, you Genevieve Marie, give us your best guess as to how many people at UNC and elsewhere know exactly who this dude is?  What do you think?  100?   500?  5,000?  Keep in mind that the harassment charge against her apparently involves her prolific facebook postings about him.  Just throw a number at us.  Your best guess.  And then tell us if it's any great consolation to him if she hasn't given the press his name.


You're still trying to push this completely made up part of the story? Still?
 
2013-02-26 11:23:46 AM  

liam76: I was accused of rape. If I told my story would you be defending everything I said as staunchly?


I'm uncomfortable giving a yes or no answer to that question without knowing the details of your story.

Ebbelwoi: An honest question for you. Given what we all know about social networking among young people, you Genevieve Marie, give us your best guess as to how many people at UNC and elsewhere know exactly who this dude is? What do you think? 100? 500? 5,000? Keep in mind that the harassment charge against her apparently involves her prolific facebook postings about him. Just throw a number at us. Your best guess. And then tell us if it's any great consolation to him if she hasn't given the press his name.


I don't honestly care if it's any consolation to him that his name is being kept out of the press? She's not naming him when she speaks about him and that's her only responsibility here. Your assertion that the charges against her involve her "prolific posts" stem from an anonymous comment left on the paper's website by someone who was a part of the honor board that's involved in this dispute with her- and someone who's apparently so immature that they don't realize that they should avoid sharing confidential information about her case even anonymously.
 
2013-02-26 11:24:01 AM  

Weaver95: no, really - tell me some more about why you feel file trading is somehow equal to rape.  that's a very interesting conflation and I think it's worth further discussion.


Since, apparently it has to be spelled out, I don't think that downloading a movie is the same thing as raping someone. I also don't believe in unicorns.
 
2013-02-26 11:25:26 AM  

stiletto_the_wise: Yet, requiring the state to prove someone's guilt is the bedrock of our justice system. So which one is the way to go? Should we treat some crimes differently?


No one is suggesting this guy be thrown in jail without a trial. Jesus. The court of public opinion is not subject to due process laws.

I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall but here we are again: NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO A SPOTLESS REPUTATION.
 
2013-02-26 11:25:51 AM  

Weaver95: ...and the university handled that allegation poorly.  which is why the students decided to do something about it.


That we can both agree on. Although I don't recall from the article exactly how the university handled it, it was obviously with some sort of incompetence, or we wouldn't be in this thread.
 
2013-02-26 11:26:03 AM  

Theaetetus: fredklein: Rape is often one of those 'he said/she said' crimes- the only 'evidence' is the testimony of both sides. In any such case, there are those who will tend to believe one side or the other. This is the way it is, and nothing can be done about it. Unless you propose the Law automatically believe the accuser?? Screw 'evidence'- throw the man in jail!!

Theft is often one of those 'he said/she said' crimes- the only 'evidence' is the testimony of both sides.


Um, no- it's not. There is often other evidence. Shoe prints from where you walked across my yard, broken window pane from where you entered the house, your fingerprints on my safe, the stolen item in your possession, etc.

With rape, unless it is extreme, there is no way to tell if say, vaginal bruising, is from rape... or simply rough sex. Even bruising on the arms (etc) could be unrelated, or from a bit of role play (hell, I pulled my wife's arms behind her back the other night- I probably left a bruise or two... but it was perfectly consensual. Which leave JUST 'he said/she said'.

Why should sexual crimes be the one area where we throw our hands up and say "gosh, witness testimony isn't enough evidence!"

They aren't. As I said above, in other crimes, "There is often other evidence". "Often", not "always". And in those cases where there is NO other evidence, it goes back to 'he said/she said.' And it comes down to who the jury believes more.
 
2013-02-26 11:26:05 AM  

Genevieve Marie: . Publicly doubting the personal and painful story of someone's rape


Want to point out where I questioned her rape?

I made it pretty clear that my comment had absoleutly no bearing on the rape.

Not suprised to see you completely skipped the other question.
 
2013-02-26 11:27:03 AM  

Weaver95: fredklein: Weaver95: Dissociater: Why is there anyone that is pro-rape?

because they don't believe rape is a 'real' crime.  near as I can tell, they believe the victim is a lying whore and that 'real rape' is rare and almost never happens to anyone.

Rape is a real crime. Women who claim to be victims are sometimes lying (and sometimes are whores). And rape is relatively rare (90,000, compared to 2,000,000 burglaries, for example).

I rest my case.


So, my saying that rape is real somehow proves I think rape is Not real??
 
2013-02-26 11:27:05 AM  

stiletto_the_wise: Theaetetus: Nope, what makes you pro-rape is that you think that if it's "difficult" to prove that rape occurred, then it shouldn't be in the definition of rape.

Where did I say that it shouldn't be in the definition of rape?


stiletto_the_wise: My comment was that that particular definition of rape includes many things that are difficult, if not impossible to prove.

stiletto_the_wise: If the above story is considered rape, then the definition of rape has grown to encompass so much that it is virtually un-provable and nearly un-distinguishable from consensual sex when examined after the fact.


You say the definition of rape has "grown". You characterize it as  that particular definition, meaning it's not one you agree with. You therefore have a different definition of rape and don't believe that it should grow to include things like drugging and having sex with someone who told you no because it's "difficult" to prove.
 
2013-02-26 11:27:13 AM  

fredklein: Dissociater: fredklein:
Terrifying? Deeply personal? A guy stuck his pee pee in your hoo ha, against your will. Why is that any more "terrifying" than a man, say, having a loaded gun pointed at his head? Or a man being beaten half to death? (Or don't men's feelings count?)

Why does it have to be compared to attempted murder in order to be serious?

Because rape is considered "terrifying", so it needs to be compared to something actually terrifying, like the threat of being killed or maimed.


So are you saying rape is not terrifying?  If so, why?  If not, why bring it up?  If it's not terrifying then it's not a serious crime?  Is this the point you're trying to make?

Are all non-terrifying crimes therefore not serious?  Like fraud causing companies to go bankrupt leaving people jobless?

So much in your post makes little to no sense.
 
2013-02-26 11:27:21 AM  

stiletto_the_wise: Yet, requiring the state to prove someone's guilt is the bedrock of our justice system. So which one is the way to go? Should we treat some crimes differently?


oh we already do that.  even a casual glance at crime statistics can prove that we treat crimes differently depending on the age, race and social status of the people involved.

but that's a distraction.  what's at issue here is the university's behavior.  even if you don't believe the victim(s), you STILL have a problem....the students here didn't agree with how the university handled their claims of rape and abuse.  And they've got a right to have those concerns addressed.  the university didn't want to hear any of it, and is trying to punish the rape victims (or alleged victims, if that makes you feel better) for speaking up about the universities badly written procedures governing how the organization should handle claims of sexual assault.
 
2013-02-26 11:28:02 AM  

Dissociater: fredklein: Weaver95: Dissociater: Why is there anyone that is pro-rape?

because they don't believe rape is a 'real' crime.  near as I can tell, they believe the victim is a lying whore and that 'real rape' is rare and almost never happens to anyone.

Rape is a real crime. Women who claim to be victims are sometimes lying (and sometimes are whores). And rape is relatively rare (90,000, compared to 2,000,000 burglaries, for example).

So, if they're 'whores' it's ok?  If yes, why?  If no, why mention it at all?

Even assuming rape is rare, does that make it less serious?  If yes, why?  If no, why mention it at all?


I dunno- why DID you bring it up?
 
2013-02-26 11:29:51 AM  

stiletto_the_wise: Weaver95: ...and the university handled that allegation poorly.  which is why the students decided to do something about it.

That we can both agree on. Although I don't recall from the article exactly how the university handled it, it was obviously with some sort of incompetence, or we wouldn't be in this thread.


badly.  the university handled things badly.  And when these students spoke up about how badly the university dropped the ball...they were/are threatened with expulsion from school.

that's what this is about.
 
2013-02-26 11:29:55 AM  

liam76: You are still depending it is an all or nothing affair wherer your choice it to "walk away" or do everything they say.


No, there's also the option to pick and  choose which parts of the kit you undergo. All of it's humiliating though. All of it's hard.

And me trying to get it through your head that and the heads of a few others that reporting requires a heroic effort and people should not be treated as liars or weaklings if they are too sad, scared, hurt or overwhelmed to go to that effort is me being a decent human.

You're arguing semantics at this point. "Oh sure, that's the process, but it doesn't HAVE to be part of the process, you can opt out and just not have that evidence collected."
 
2013-02-26 11:30:02 AM  

Theaetetus: serial_crusher: You left out the word "maybe", which was kind of important to the original story.
If you tell a guy no, then get voluntarily drunk and change your mind, it's not rape; it's you changing your mind.

You added the words "voluntary" and "change your mind", and the absence of those are kind of important to the original story. In fact, the original story said "you know you didn't say yes. In fact, you remember telling him you weren't interested." Instead, you're changing that to "you did say yes." Crucial difference which you have to supply since, y'know, otherwise it's rape.

Plus, it may well be rape anyway, if she was too drunk to consent.


Well, I was going on the theory that you remembered saying no, but didn't remember changing your mind (because it happened after you were wasted), which is consistent with your original "because maybe you had too much to drink and maybe someone drugged you".
All I'm saying is the story isn't clear enough to definitively define it as rape.

Too-drunk-to-consent is only rape if one party is sober enough to recognize the other one is too drunk.  Unless you consider them to both be raping each other...
 
2013-02-26 11:30:07 AM  

Dissociater: fredklein: Weaver95: Dissociater: Why is there anyone that is pro-rape?

because they don't believe rape is a 'real' crime.  near as I can tell, they believe the victim is a lying whore and that 'real rape' is rare and almost never happens to anyone.

Rape is a real crime. Women who claim to be victims are sometimes lying (and sometimes are whores). And rape is relatively rare (90,000, compared to 2,000,000 burglaries, for example).

So, if they're 'whores' it's ok?  If yes, why?  If no, why mention it at all?

Even assuming rape is rare, does that make it less serious?  If yes, why?  If no, why mention it at all?


Whoops- I apologize- Weaver brought it up:"they believe... 'real rape' is rare and almost never happens to anyone".

And, NO it's not Okay if they are whores. But, fact is, they sometimes are.
 
2013-02-26 11:31:59 AM  

fredklein: Dissociater: fredklein: Weaver95: Dissociater: Why is there anyone that is pro-rape?

because they don't believe rape is a 'real' crime.  near as I can tell, they believe the victim is a lying whore and that 'real rape' is rare and almost never happens to anyone.

Rape is a real crime. Women who claim to be victims are sometimes lying (and sometimes are whores). And rape is relatively rare (90,000, compared to 2,000,000 burglaries, for example).

So, if they're 'whores' it's ok?  If yes, why?  If no, why mention it at all?

Even assuming rape is rare, does that make it less serious?  If yes, why?  If no, why mention it at all?

Whoops- I apologize- Weaver brought it up:"they believe... 'real rape' is rare and almost never happens to anyone".

And, NO it's not Okay if they are whores. But, fact is, they sometimes are.


So why bring it up at all then?
 
2013-02-26 11:32:23 AM  

fredklein: Theaetetus: fredklein: Rape is often one of those 'he said/she said' crimes- the only 'evidence' is the testimony of both sides. In any such case, there are those who will tend to believe one side or the other. This is the way it is, and nothing can be done about it. Unless you propose the Law automatically believe the accuser?? Screw 'evidence'- throw the man in jail!!

Theft is often one of those 'he said/she said' crimes- the only 'evidence' is the testimony of both sides.

Um, no- it's not. There is often other evidence. Shoe prints from where you walked across my yard, broken window pane from where you entered the house, your fingerprints on my safe, the stolen item in your possession, etc.


Uh, Fred, that's breaking and entering and burglary. I said "theft".
Let's try an experiment that should help you understand how theft can be he-said, she-said... Can I borrow a $50 bill? It's for a great magic trick.

Also, I notice you clipped out the part where I said it applies to "fraud" too... Shall we just note your agreement there?

Why should sexual crimes be the one area where we throw our hands up and say "gosh, witness testimony isn't enough evidence!"

 And in those cases where there is NO other evidence, it goes back to 'he said/she said.' And it comes down to who the jury believes more.

So you agree, then, that if someone is accused of rape, there should be an arrest, charges, and a trial and we'll see whom the jury believes more? But then, why would you say "Rape is often one of those 'he said/she said' crimes- the only 'evidence' is the testimony of both sides. In any such case, there are those who will tend to believe one side or the other. This is the way it is, and nothing can be done about it. Unless you propose the Law automatically believe the accuser?? Screw 'evidence'- throw the man in jail!!"?
 
2013-02-26 11:33:14 AM  

Weaver95: fredklein: Tat'dGreaser: fredklein: Terrifying? Deeply personal? A guy stuck his pee pee in your hoo ha, against your will. Why is that any more "terrifying" than a man, say, having a loaded gun pointed at his head? Or a man being beaten half to death? (Or don't men's feelings count?)

What in the f*ck is wrong with you?

So, you believe getting raped is More traumatic than almost getting Killed??

What the f*ck is wrong with you?

well, tell ya what.  how about we rape you almost to death, then have you fill out a questionnaire about your experience so that we can help you understand this situation a bit better?  would that help?

its all good.  it'll be for posterity.


You're the violent nutcase type women should be afraid of. Someone dares disagree with you? Rape them to death!!!
 
2013-02-26 11:33:32 AM  

Genevieve Marie: liam76: I was accused of rape. If I told my story would you be defending everything I said as staunchly?

I'm uncomfortable giving a yes or no answer to that question without knowing the details of your story.


I retract my last statement about skipping the question.

Now clearly you can see the double standard.
 
2013-02-26 11:34:51 AM  

Theaetetus: You say the definition of rape has "grown". You characterize it as  that particular definition, meaning it's not one you agree with. You therefore have a different definition of rape and don't believe that it should grow to include things like drugging and having sex with someone who told you no because it's "difficult" to prove.


You can put whatever words into my mouth that you want if it makes you happy. It's pretty obvious that you're not actually reading what's on your screen.

Weaver95: but that's a distraction.  what's at issue here is the university's behavior.  even if you don't believe the victim(s), you STILL have a problem....the students here didn't agree with how the university handled their claims of rape and abuse.  And they've got a right to have those concerns addressed.  the university didn't want to hear any of it, and is trying to punish the rape victims (or alleged victims, if that makes you feel better) for speaking up about the universities badly written procedures governing how the organization should handle claims of sexual assault.


I don't understand why an educational institution is even getting involved. Aren't they supposed to be running classes and taking tuition checks? Back in the old days, when I went to university (when dinosaurs roamed the earth), if a crime happened, you report it to the police, not your teacher!
 
2013-02-26 11:34:55 AM  
Genevieve Marie:  Publicly doubting the personal and painful story of someone's rape because you think the unnamed rapist deserves to be staunchly defended and that a victim should be treated as a potential liar until the rapist is convicted in a court of law hurts not just that victim, but a whole hell of a lot of others who are shamed into silence.

And yet there are more reasons to doubt her story other than the usual he said/she said divide.  Both the accused and accuser have gone through a reasonably extensive investigation.  The "court", flawed as it might be, found her arguments unconvincing despite what she describes as "voluminous evidence" against the accused.  She also steadfastly refuses to go to the police with her "voluminous evidence".  This despite her having no fear about her own anonymity, or any other shame issues as, quite obviously she's already broadcasted the claims to the entire world.  Again, there is no statute of limitations.  The "rapist" coulld be off the streets tomorrow.   But WHY doesn't she act, if nothing more than to protect other potential victims?  Why does she still refuse to go to the police?

I hate to tell you this, but these are serious red flags for most objective bystanders, even though virtually ALL information about the proceedings comes from Ms Gambill herself.  We've really yet to hear the accused's side of things and/or heard anything from the court itself.  Problematic to say the least.
 
2013-02-26 11:35:41 AM  

Genevieve Marie: liam76: Pretty sure most hospitals don't take "all yoru clothes" as part of the investigation.

Yea, you should maybe familiarize yourself with rape examination procedures:

http://barcc.org/forensics/saf/evidence/exam


"The survivor is in control of the entire exam. Before each step of the Kit, the medical provider should explain the step and ask the survivor if they want to continue. Nothing will be done that the survivor does not agree to."

"Clothing and undergarments may be collected as evidence during the rape exam."

"May", if the 'survivor' agrees.

"Survivor". Sheesh.
 
2013-02-26 11:37:09 AM  

liam76: Genevieve Marie: liam76: I was accused of rape. If I told my story would you be defending everything I said as staunchly?

I'm uncomfortable giving a yes or no answer to that question without knowing the details of your story.

I retract my last statement about skipping the question.

Now clearly you can see the double standard.


Yep.  That just got you favorited.
 
2013-02-26 11:38:07 AM  

spiderpaz: To my surprise what I see is the same 3 or 4 baby blues smacking down every poster off my green list (intelligent, reasonable moderates) for 12 hours straight.


Either I somehow managed to miss every post you're talking about, or you have one very strange definition for what counts as an "Intelligent, reasonable moderate."
 
2013-02-26 11:38:31 AM  

Genevieve Marie: liam76: You are still depending it is an all or nothing affair wherer your choice it to "walk away" or do everything they say.

No, there's also the option to pick and choose which parts of the kit you undergo.


So you want to acknowledge the discrepancy between "they will" swab all orifices and "they will" take your clothes, and your previous claims of they are "required" to do those things with your current statement?


Genevieve Marie: And me trying to get it through your head that and the heads of a few others that reporting requires a heroic effort and people should not be treated as liars or weaklings if they are too sad, scared, hurt or overwhelmed to go to that effort is me being a decent human.


Never said they should, but nor should the alledged perpetrator be treated as guilty.


Genevieve Marie: You're arguing semantics at this point. "Oh sure, that's the process, but it doesn't HAVE to be part of the process, you can opt out and just not have that evidence collected"


I am not arguing semantics.  Your intitial statements were at best misleading and at worst outright lies.  It implied that if you were vaginally raped they would be "required" to swab your ass.  That isn't true.
It implied they would be "required" to take yoru clothes.  That isn't true.
 
2013-02-26 11:39:09 AM  

serial_crusher: Theaetetus: serial_crusher: You left out the word "maybe", which was kind of important to the original story.
If you tell a guy no, then get voluntarily drunk and change your mind, it's not rape; it's you changing your mind.

You added the words "voluntary" and "change your mind", and the absence of those are kind of important to the original story. In fact, the original story said "you know you didn't say yes. In fact, you remember telling him you weren't interested." Instead, you're changing that to "you did say yes." Crucial difference which you have to supply since, y'know, otherwise it's rape.

Plus, it may well be rape anyway, if she was too drunk to consent.

Well, I was going on the theory that you remembered saying no, but didn't remember changing your mind (because it happened after you were wasted), which is consistent with your original "because maybe you had too much to drink and maybe someone drugged you".All I'm saying is the story isn't clear enough to definitively define it as rape.


Only because you changed the part where it says "you know you didn't say yes". The story is quite clear.

Too-drunk-to-consent is only rape if one party is sober enough to recognize the other one is too drunk.  Unless you consider them to both be raping each other...

Inability to recognize incapacity of the victim is an affirmative defense. If you're going to fark someone who is passed out, then the burden falls on you to show that you were too drunk to recognize that (albeit not too drunk to fark them). So, at that point, the above story  is rape unless you can prove that defense.
 
2013-02-26 11:40:05 AM  

jedikinkoid: Halophilic: Weaver95: pro-rape crowd here

I'm pretty sure referring to anyone except actual rapists as "pro-rape" is the biggest strawman in the history of the world.  Kudos.

"Pro-rape" is poorly worded. But some people in here, fredklein being the best example, could be fairly called rape apologists.


Nice strawman.

Rape is horrible. (For that matter,so is getting shot, or beaten.) Rapists should get a fair trial and, if convicted, go to prison.

How, exactly, is that "pro rape" or an "apology" for rape??
 
2013-02-26 11:40:21 AM  
stiletto_the_wise:
I don't understand why an educational institution is even getting involved. Aren't they supposed to be running classes and taking tuition checks? Back in the old days, when I went to university (when dinosaurs roamed the earth), if a crime happened, you report it to the police, not your teacher!

because the university doesn't like controversy.  they don't like bad press, they don't like to report violent crimes on campus and they have every reason to keep their crime stats low, even if it means cheating to keep it off the books.  how else do you think PSU was able to keep a lid on over a decade of kiddie rape?  they had local (and some state) cops help 'em keep it on the down low.  pressure is applied, careers threatened or enhanced.  money changes hands.  evidence gets lost and cases get dismissed.  now i'm not saying that's what happened here but...there's ample precedent for it to happen.
 
2013-02-26 11:40:49 AM  

stiletto_the_wise: Theaetetus: You say the definition of rape has "grown". You characterize it as  that particular definition, meaning it's not one you agree with. You therefore have a different definition of rape and don't believe that it should grow to include things like drugging and having sex with someone who told you no because it's "difficult" to prove.

You can put whatever words into my mouth that you want if it makes you happy. It's pretty obvious that you're not actually reading what's on your screen.


Fine, then answer it yes or no: do you believe that the definition of rape should include even those situations where it's "difficult" to prove or where evidence about consent is solely complainant testimony vs. accused testimony?
 
2013-02-26 11:41:42 AM  

Genevieve Marie: Now be grateful that you had the privilege to be born in a world that doesn't demand the same of you and then blame you if you fail to be vigilant for a few hours and become a victim.


Hey dipshiat, I'm female and I still think you are batshiat insane paranoid if you're fearful of an elevator ride or you need to look over your shoulder in your makeup mirror just to make it down the street.

5monkeys: All of my friends who are woman do the same, or have other safety tricks.


I don't, and I have never actually met any woman in person who does the 'must have keys between fingers' and 'always keep cell phone out'. I look around when I'm out. I don't see it happening, either. The only place I have ever seen people even talk about how they always do these things is on the Internet. What you're describing does not match up with the reality I know.

Callous: Stop reading absolutes into everything everyone posts when they are discussing risk. Risk is a sliding scale and never absolute.


That's all she ever does. Look at how she assumed I was a man with privilege because I said staring over your shoulder in a compact mirror to see if anyone's watching you is farking paranoid.
 
2013-02-26 11:41:52 AM  

Weaver95: stiletto_the_wise:
I don't understand why an educational institution is even getting involved. Aren't they supposed to be running classes and taking tuition checks? Back in the old days, when I went to university (when dinosaurs roamed the earth), if a crime happened, you report it to the police, not your teacher!

because the university doesn't like controversy.  they don't like bad press, they don't like to report violent crimes on campus and they have every reason to keep their crime stats low, even if it means cheating to keep it off the books.  how else do you think PSU was able to keep a lid on over a decade of kiddie rape?  they had local (and some state) cops help 'em keep it on the down low.  pressure is applied, careers threatened or enhanced.  money changes hands.  evidence gets lost and cases get dismissed.  now i'm not saying that's what happened here but...there's ample precedent for it to happen.


You're going to laugh when I tell you where I went to school....
 
2013-02-26 11:41:57 AM  

spiderpaz: Yep.  That just got you favorited.


Well, that certainly answers my question.
 
2013-02-26 11:43:09 AM  

Theaetetus: So you agree, then, that if someone is accused of rape, there should be an arrest, charges, and a trial and we'll see whom the jury believes more?


YES.
 
Displayed 50 of 1269 comments

First | « | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report