I am trying to imagine a man who causes his partner to cry during sex (and it’s clear these aren’t tears of joy) who doesn’t just stop whatever it is he’s doing. If he has to hold her down and is making her cry, what is going on in his mind? Doesn’t it bother him she isn’t finding his attentions pleasurable?
I have this thought that Paul is a little more worried about “Adam” right now.
@dstark I’m sure he is worried. The fact that he has this new accuser, “Adam,” who came out of the blue, really makes me think Nungesser is guilty. Rape is a serious allegation.
I’m sure it was difficult for this new young man to admit that, and I believe him.
Who knows 'who" Adam is other than he’s somebody who identifies as a black queer man who says he was friends with Paul and was assaulted three years ago as a previous post reports. Hopefully he’s got some evidence or he’s also going to be media fodder caught in the Emma vortex. Nungesser must be an interesting fellow to have so many interesting friends. Wonder why he waited three years?
Emma is calling Adam a survivor. Survivor? Since when did being shoved and grabbed if it happened become something one “survives”? And, it’s certainly not rape. omg. Wow. This is crazy talk now.
Fang – I’ve generally thought your posts have been well reasoned and insightful.
But you’ll lose all credibility with me if you continue to argue that this woman could have been raped.
She was not a wife. She was not a live in girlfriend. She did not have a kid to protect. She was financially independent from this guy. She did not share the same roof with him. She was not drugged or blackmailed or coerced with a weapon. She was not mentally incompetent. She’s a first year student at Columbia for god’s sake!! Plenty smart.
She had horrible sex with him many times. For discussion sake, let’s say the horrible sex (which she now claims was non-consensual) happened a dozen times over the course of several months. How in the world can this guy continue to have sex with this woman (which requires two people in a private room and a closed door) if the woman does not cooperate? Did he hypnotize her?
As a legal matter, the first time this happened it could have been rape. Maybe the second time too. As a legal matter it is literally impossible for all those other times to be rape. Legally impossible.
Not one single prosecutor in the entire world would bring this case. If one did, every single judge in the world would dismiss this case before trial. Even if you agree that every word she says is true, it is not rape. There literally could not be a weaker, more preposterous claim of rape.
The guy may be creepy and kinky and weird and awful. But as a legal matter, the girl consented to it. Even if she now says that she “feels” it was non-consensual.
I don’t understand why the woman would agree to this. But she did. FYI, she admits to having issues and having a prior toxic relationship. Come on Fang.
Are you saying, northwesty, that it is impossible that she could have been raped repeatedly by this guy?
Let’s change the alleged facts. Is this scenario possible: A woman is seeing a guy. For some reason, he beats her up. She continues to see him, although they are not married, she does not live with him, and she is not financially dependent on her. Do you believe that this scenario happens, ever?
Punching a woman in the face is a crime regardless of whether she consents or not.
Having sex with a woman (even weird, gross sex) is not a crime if the woman allows it.
Big difference.
The details of accuser#2’s allegations are just not known. The only information, which comes from the jezebel blog can be taken in two ways. First, interpretation would be that he held her down and would not let her get up and forced her to have sex when she didn’t want to or that she told him no or stop and he continued as he held her down. The alternative view is that he held her arms down during sex, which she now realizes she didn’t like, but she was not forced to do anything she objected to at the time, if she ever said no he stopped, and she was never restricted from getting up and leaving.
If the former, which is CF’s interpretation, is true, she was raped. If the latter, I would say bad boyfriend and bad relationship, but not rape.
If he held her down, she wasn’t “allowing” it.
I don’t see how you can agree that a guy can violently punch his girlfriend and it’s a crime, but if he rapes her, it’s not a crime. What if he beats her up and then holds her down and has intercourse while she is crying-- is that rape?
As to whether a prosecutor would bring a case-- as you know, prosecutors decline to bring cases all the time, because of insufficient proof, even though the allegations would be a crime if they were true. So a prosecutor declining to bring a case tells us nothing about whether the underlying allegations would constitute a crime if they were true.
Let’s say we have an domestic abuser. He’s already sent his victim, who does not live with him, to the hospital six times. Three of the times she showed signs of forced sex, in addition to injuries from beatings, and the hospital staff will testify to that. Finally, she agrees to press charges. She will say that he beat her and raped her. The hospital staff will testify to her injuries. The neighbors will testify that they heard her scream at him to stop having intercourse with her because he was raping her. The prosecutor charges him with beating, and also with rape. OK, Judge Northwesty, are you throwing out the charges of rape because he can’t possibly have raped her?
If you concede, as I think you will, that this violent guy can be charged with rape, not only charged with rape but convicted of rape, then you concede that guys can rape women and the women can nevertheless return to them.
I don’t insist that the former interpretation of her accusation is the correct interpretation of what she is saying. My point is that IF the former interpretation is true, then she is saying was raped. IF that’s what she says happened, then she is saying she was raped. On the other hand IF she says she indulged in sex practices that she now doesn’t like, or that she didn’t particularly like at the time but nevertheless agreed to, that is not rape. She says she was crying during and after the acts, which suggests the former.
Sulkowicz says she was screaming during the alleged anal rape. The four allegations, which may or may not be true, all suggest someone who forces people into sexual acts they don’t want even if they are crying or screaming.
The language is completely being dumb-downed in terms of making sense that anyone can actually understand or use as a basis for discussion.
Over the several threads, it turns out that every and anyone could be a survivor, regardless of what happened or did not happen. Even Jackie of UVA fame is considered a survivor even though nothing has not checked out about her story. The meme now is something happened to her and she survived something. A survivor of what though - an embellished imagination? No one knows, but for sure she has not shown to have even been attacked. So, it seems the standard now is an accusation alone makes one a survivor. That is a bar that is set just below the ankles. not very high.
In a working sense, it seems now a survivor is someone who is not getting his or her way in an argument, in a break-up, or in a misunderstanding etc.
This is dumbing-down of the language is the literal creation of crimes out of every day interactions between people. Not everything between people occur with the smoothest precision, as language is limited and interpretations differ (duh), but this does not mean that someone is inevitably and deliberately attacking another. People argue; someone loses an argument; someone loses a fight; people push and shove each other; people do not get along in one facet or another, add whatever you want here to the list. Welcome to life But it is whiny nonsense of making everything about survivors and aggressors.
How about the simplest thought - people do not always get along; they will always disagree; and someone will always feel they got the short end. No survivors here, just people who feel they lost.
CF: You seemed to be saying that since she claims he held her down, clearly it was rape. But here you are saying what I said, except I don’t think her saying she was crying in and of itself means it was definitely rape.
Because, at the time, there was no celebrity or sympathy mileage to be had at the time for being called a survivor simply for making an accusation. This is the new avenue for 15-minutes of fame. Therefore, I get it why this guy never came out before - nothing to be gained back then, and he probability saw it as no big deal at the time either.
Even after making the accusation and failing to prove her case twice in the easiest of adjudication forums (college tribunal), Emma still got big-time invites to high profile events. There is mileage to be had for just making accusations now, whether the accusation is substantiated or not.
It would be a lot easier if the term survivor (and victim too) was not thrown around so freely and reserved for true survivors. Just like not everything is rape, not everyone is a survivor.
You’re right, mom2and. That (she says) he was holding her down, that (she says) she was crying and that (we know) she reported it as a sexual assault make me think the actions she described, if true, would have been rape. But if I were able to hear her complete story, I might conclude that what she said he did was not rape.
And I’m fairly sure that if I were one of the people tasking with adjudicating the dispute, I would decide I didn’t even have a preponderance of the evidence that he did what she accused him of doing.
Whereas I wonder why you guys aren’t reading the article you’re critiquing. He didn’t wait three years.
And I also wonder why awc would imagine that talking pseudonymously with Jezebel would lead to celebrity. How can someone be a celebrity when we don’t know who he is?
Ilovethecity, yes.
Adam better not be real. If Adam is real, Is Paul going to jail? No.
Is Paul going to get kicked out of Columbia? Probably not.
But if there are two independent accusations, Paul is guilty.
The arguments that Paul should have done x, Paul would have done y, I would have done x and y…are just noise.
The probability is the probability. All the noise doesn’t change anything.
CF, remember what Dr Fang said. Two independent accusations…Paul did it.
“Not until months after their break up did Natalie recognize this as non-consensual intercourse.”
This statement exonerates the guy. 100% exculpatory. If at the time she thought it was consensual, it was in fact consensual. Period.
I don’t practice criminal law, but I get a very high grade in that class in law school. He cannot be a rapist. Legal impossibility.
Often, the issue of consent is very much in factual dispute. The victim believes/says no consent, the accused says the opposite, and the fact finder has to figure out what factual indicators there are regarding the existence or lack of consent.
This “victim” admits that she thought it was consensual at the time. That is consent. Forget about 51%/preponderence. There’s not even a 1% chance of rape.
It is not rape to have sex with a girl who is crying but who allows the sex.
dstark: I keep googling, but can find no new news. It is impossible for me to believe there won’t be updates on “Adam.” Maybe the story is being written. We can hope.
In the meantime, I like this using math to prove rape. My skill set here is extremely limited, but I am doing my best to keep up. Please keep going. 
We don’t need anymore numbers.
We just need Adam.
Alh, hopefully next week we will have more news.
Maybe the NY Times or the Washington Post will pick this story up.