Emma Sulkowicz's Alleged Attacker speaks again in new article

Parents Forum
641

Oh gawd bearpanther - this is one of those almost impossible things to discuss on a message board imho but I think you are correct.

I am very small and very feminine looking and have always been much more girly acting and giggly than appropriate. I have always been interested in men. Men have always been interested in me. Men have almost never touched me without my permission. That permission may have been non-verbal.

I wrote about slugging a kisser, with my father’s permission in second grade. That was really the end of anyone sexually harassing me. I remember a foreign student at college, who didn’t really undersand the culture, who kept following me around after class for a few days asking me out and politely being refused. Eventually I had to be rude. I had to tell him: “I will never go on a date with you. I do not like you.” I still feel bad about that.

When I was immensely pregnant and giving a huge party, a male heterosexual friend came up behind me and rubbed my shoulders. I do not think he meant it as a sexual gesture in any way. I think he just thought I looked really stressed. I turned around and gave him quite a look and he let go and never touched me again. We weren’t “hugging whenever we saw each other” kinds of friends or I may have reacted differently. No other male has rubbed my shoulders. Other than a male family member.

Regardless what vibes we give out, no one should be touching us without permission!!!

642

MOTB I’ve read the entire thread. I still don’t see an answer to any of my questions. That’s why I asked.

643

Hunt, we are speculating about Adam.
We don’t know if Adam even exists.

Why should Emma pursue criminal court or civil court? She is not going to win. Makes no sense to go through the legal system when you aren’t going to win. There are crimes that are not provable in court. To say somebody did not do everything when the person did not do something that doesn’t work…

Emma is under no obligation to do everything. Paul is not either.

The above does not mean Emma is not telling the truth.

Emma should be allowed to make her own decisions. She should decide what works best for her as long as it is legal, the school is ok with what she is doing and she isn’t harassing anybody.

Paul can do what he wants to do. If he wants to complain to the school, he should.

644

@alh - It makes me feel bad that you feel bad. You had no choice. He put you in that position. What you said is perfectly fine.

Given the attitudes you’ve expressed in your posts, I’m surprised that you feel bad at all. Why?

Maybe this is a difference in the psychology of men and women. I’d be angry at the guy, not sympathetic.

I wonder how typical your reaction is among women. I’m afraid that it actually is somewhat typical. Is this part of what’s going on? College women + alcohol + guilty feelings at saying no, which prevents them from standing up for themselves when a guy they know tries something?

Are the guys who do this experts at finding women like this and manipulating them to get sex?

(Please everyone (not alh) don’t accuse me of victim blaming unless you really think it’s warranted. I’m just trying to understand. It’s completely foreign to me.)

645

Bearpanther, great post # 639. We throw out some energy and some people can read it.

Some people miss the cues.

It is a good topic. Maybe there are some experts here that could address this.

646

My wife described in a nutshell. And she made sure she never lost that edge by never getting drunk and in a non-thinking stupor, so that her safety became dependent on the kindness or evilness of others; she kept her wits about her. Real simple, but real smart because it works.

647

response to #643

I felt bad because it was going to hurt his feelings. He was supposed to get the message without me having to tell him straight out I didn’t find him desirable. He was not a jerk, or a creep. He was just a guy in a foreign culture who didn’t understand the rules and signals. He thought if a girl in his class smiled and said “hi” that meant she wanted to date him. Local guys understood that was just good manners. I felt like I should have been able to handle it without hurting his feelings. I thought it would probably have been worse to ask a male friend to explain it to him. This guy was in no way a stalker. He just had a crush on me and thought I was flirting. I remember it so well, because this was a very unusual situation for me.

The only other case of really unsolicited attention I remember was an unknown man following me, from my car in the parking lot, into the store I worked while in highschool, asking me (more or less politely) if I would go out with him while I ignored him. He walked in the door right behind me. I pointed at him and declared very loudly to the uniformed security guard guarding the door, “This man is bothering me” and walked right on. I never saw him again. Probably I should have been a little more worried when leaving that night. Maybe the guard was watching me walk to my car. That I can’t recall. Sometimes I did ask the guard to walk me to my car, that I remember. I was 15 or 16. That was a really long time ago.

648

I had a roommate who chose the same type of boyfriend over and over. They were clingy, they were possessive, they drank too much, they whined, they called 10 times a night. And finally they hit her. Then she would find a new one, and he’d call a million times and grill her on where she was, who she was with, did she not get his calls, did she not love him (after a week). And she’d be so sorry to have hurt him by not keeping him posted about her schedule 24/7. And then she’d push a button, because she did know how to do that. And he’d hit her. Of course it was not right to hit her, ever, but she knew going in that that would be the outcome because she didn’t change her actions in any way. We all knew. The law is not going to make things right even if the jerk is found guilty. The crime is still going to have happened. Prevention is better than justice.

I can see Paul attracting, and being attracted to, the same type of women, so therefore more likely to be accused of doing the same things with any two independent accusers. He admits to having sex with them, and they (except for the kissing/grabbing girl) admit that some/most of the sex was consensual. I think he probably is an obnoxious college guy who thinks he’s a catch. He’s foreign, exciting. He was at a foreign college, and wanted to experience everything. No it is not right for men to attack women because they are wearing a tube top and Daisy Dukes, but is that woman taking all the precautions she can to protect herself? Emma did consent to the ‘regular’ sex, casual sex between friends. She also claims Paul was drunk, which she knew when she agreed to the ‘regular’ (for her) sex. Was that a good idea, to agree to have sex with a drunk guy you know is kind of bossy? Is it more likely that someone will be anally raped by a drunk, naked guy in her bed? I think it is. She needed to make better decisions too. Did the Columbia hearing board take that into consideration? Maybe they did. Maybe they thought that Paul couldn’t have known that Emma didn’t want to experiment more sexually because she’d agreed to all the other sex, and now that it’s a he said/she said, they are going to look at all the facts and determine that it was entirely possible that, given the circumstances, Emma did consent. People do have anal sex, by consent. Some even regret it afterward. It is not common for people to discuss and agree to every event before sex, except with hookers. There are some things that are ‘beyond the pale’ (choking, beating, drugging), but anal sex and oral sex may have become acceptable, especially among college aged adults. That is a consideration for the hearing board.

I think the saddest part of this story, as it comes to an end because they are graduating, is that Emma has had a horrible college experience and Paul’s wasn’t what it could have been either. She accepts no responsibility for her actions or that she could have done things differently. If she were counseling freshmen that bad things can happen, even with people you think are friends, I’d have more respect and support for her. If she preached on safety, of protecting yourself, of not sleeping with drunk guys, I’d be supporting her. If she were lobbying Columbia for more safety in dorms, of how not to let this happen to others, she’d be my hero. Instead, she’s carrying a mattress proclaiming “I’ve been wronged.” She had the hearing she requested, and there are no claims that the hearing wasn’t fair, just that the outcome wasn’t what she wanted. She needs to have a purpose beyond getting Paul punished because that’s not going to happen. That battle is lost. She needs to find a purpose that can help her move on because right now she’s making no progress in life as her only focus is revenge.

649

I don’t want to derail too much but this friend of mine mentioned before was harassed almost daily at the place we both worked. Three guys were the worst and the held the top 3 positions in the small company. Shoulder rubs, standing too close at the copy machine, compliments on her perfume, leaning over her chair and putting their faces next to hers while they talked…it was gross to watch. One guy in a different department that she transferred out of had actually put his hand on her thigh in the car and propositioned her in front of a motel. Luckily when she said No he didn’t press it.

Finally another girl and I convinced my friend to tell human resources (a woman). Predictably nothing happened—the guy she would have reported it to was one of the guys doing it! I think she must have said something though because they stopped coming in our office (they had no reason to come in anyway except to bother her).

I should also mention this was my first job out of college so I was 21. My friend was 22.

650

twoinanddone: As respectfully as possible, I disagree with almost the entirely of your post. Since I have already posted so much today I will give someone else a chance to respond now. Basically, just because some of us can take care of ourselves doesn’t mean we should abandon our sisters. It is on the perpetrators not to do evil, not on women to prevent it happening. It is a societal problem, not an individual problem. imho.

651

If she’s going to lose her case in civil court, where the standard of proof is the preponderance of the evidence, doesn’t that mean that it is more likely than not that her story is untrue? And yet, many people seem to believe her.

Actually, here’s what I think the lawyers for both of these people probably told them: “Yes, you could go to civil court and sue [him for assault/her for defamation]. But you need to know that the standard of proof in such a case is the preponderance of the evidence, and the jury will be entitled to decide which one of you it believes is more likely to be telling the truth. And a jury decision doesn’t even have to be unanimous (I think it has to be 5 out of 6 in a civil case in New York.) You never know who’s going to be on the jury. And if you sue [him/her], [he/she] might countersue you. If you lose, you could have to pay [him/her] a lot of money. It’s awfully risky.” Indeed, it would probably be more risky for her, since she already lost in a setting that uses the preponderance of the evidence.

652

Not to mention that in a civil case in NY state court, 5 out of 6 jurors must vote guilty. And I think Paul would be able to introduce as evidence the text messages like “I love you Paul” sent soon after the incident. If her lawyer tried to introduce the other accusations they’d be laughed out of court. And she’d be cross examined. Frankly, I don’t know if she could control herself well enough to be sympathetic. Easy to push her buttons (just my personal assessment). And he doesn’t have any money; he lives in Germany, what would she win? He might not even bother showing up.

On the other side, I don’t know much about defamation, but it doesn’t seem like most people win those kind of suits. No court would have a problem with her giving his name in a police report. The question is - did she mention him by name as her rapist in any other setting? Even still, I don’t know that his odds are that good. But they strike me as better than hers. Besides, what would he win besides a moral victory? She’s an adult, so probably can’t go after her parents’ assets.

Does Paul have a case against Columbia? I’m not even sure what the issues are. If he didn’t file a complaint with them then he may be completely out of luck. Maybe he should file a complaint prophylactically before he graduates? Have to think all of this through …

653

I don’t know, @alh, I think everyone has to get involved.

Men should be educated on consent and respect and the effect of alcohol/drugs and how to treat a sexual partner properly and how to protect themselves from an attack from acquaintance or stranger.

Women should receive the exact same education in my opinion.

I don’t think that is putting the burden of responsibility unduly on anyone. It seems like common sense to me if both partners go in equally armed with the same knowledge. We see the confusion that has arisen in these gray cases (what is consent? how drunk were they? He says she didn’t say no, but she says she didn’t say yes), so let’s lay it all on the line for everyone.

I don’t think that’s blaming anyone. Educating all of society, and from as young an age as possible, can only help. Sex ed/health starts as young as 5th grade here, I don’t see why they can’t start talking about some of these issues in middle school (7th or 8th grade).

654

Sorry, I do have one more thing to get off my my chest:

I don’t want to be too self-congratulatory about being able to take care of myself and giving off “don’t mess with me” vibes. These skills are due entirely to the lucky accident of birth that put me in a family setting that taught such skills. It isn’t something I picked up on my own. Also, it is difficult for me to disentangle how much of my “luck” has had to do with vibes I put out rather than an association with strong males. There was always a father, a brother, a boyfriend, and then a husband. Now there are sons. I was never attracted to the bad boys. That is probably just a matter of luck as well. If not luck, it is merely an example of modeling on the behavior of women in my family.

okay - now I really do think I’m done for the day.

oops. cross-posted.
bearpanther: I said upthread we should start teaching rape prevention in kindergarten. I said it would be called teaching respect for all individuals. I think if we can really teach than, all will be well.

655

Hunt, No. It doesn’t.

There are cases that are not provable… Even with a preponderance of guilt standard.

The preponderance of guilt standard sounds so low, but sometimes it is high enough to prevent a guilty verdict.
I don’t think I am saying anything out of the ordinary here.

I think Paul probably assaulted Emma and just looking at her case alone… I can see why the finding was in Paul’s favor. (I am ignoring the parent’s letter).

Hunt, you know more than me about law. I sat on a jury. There were 4 parties. I had to decide the percentage each party was responsible for this accident.

It is not an exact science. My percentages were not objective. They were also not similar to everybody else’s.

A prior settlement was withheld from the jury. Every juror thought the knowledge if the prior settlement was relevant when we found this out. Luckiky, it did not change the outcome. The women on the jury never budged. I missed one of my son’s best soccer games, damn it, and he has had a lot of them, because of this jury. :slight_smile:

12 subjective jurors does not equal an objective verdict.

656

Hunt, you don’t believe Emma because of Columbia’s ruling?

5 out of 6 jurors in NY are necessary?

657

I neither believe nor disbelieve her, because I haven’t seen all the evidence. However, the one tribunal that did see the evidence found against her. Under those circumstances, it’s strange that so many people believe her and disbelieve him. I suspect that people are thinking, “Nobody would lug a mattress around like that based on a false claim.” Personally, I have no basis for determining how likely that is.

Note: in a civil trial, nobody is found “guilty.” That’s only in criminal trials. If she sued him for assault, and he countersued her for defamation, the likelihood is that the jury would find one or the other of them more believable, and would find for that person. If the jury found both of them unpalatable, the result would probably be that they would find very low damages.

658

Believe the victim is the rallying cry of her supporters. Many of these cases are going to be unprovable so they just seem to want what they call validation. Personally, I never cared much about validation and think as a concept it is just weird and pointless. But, that’s just me. I know.

659

Hunt - Agree very much with your point about weighing the tribunal’s opinion more heavily than most people seem to. Part of Emma’s project has been to attempt to discredit their ruling. But what do you think about the fact that there are 2 other women who’ve accused Paul of sexual misconduct? What do you think personally, and do you think a tribunal should care?

Also, you’re right that the verdict isn’t “guilty” in civil trial. It’s just easier to type than “found in favor of complainant”. But in your suit / countersuit scenario, I’d argue that the most likely result is that both claim and counterclaim are found wanting. No damages, just a lot of time and legal fees down the drain.

Added: Anyway, most civil suits are just a ritual that people go through so that they can settle out of court, usually before the trial even begins. In a business setting, I think 90% are settled before trial. I’ve always viewed it as just a very complicated form of negotiation where everyone can assess the strength of each other’s hands before deciding whether they want to spin the roulette wheel of a trial.

But no settlement is possible in cases like this.

660

Your opinion is correct in the very beginning, but it extremely is interesting that you do not see the flaw in the entire argument and the non-sequitor, and thus miss the point of why @twoinanddone wrote Post #647.

I would think no one would disagree that “It is on the perpetrators not to do evil.” And you define the problem head on, i.e., there are individuals who do evil. It should have been added though that they do evil because they actively and purposely choose to do so.

However, evil does not care what you think philosophically - that is the underlying premise of the word in many respects. It goes againt all practical norms. Until people accept that evildoers do not care and do not think rationally, it is nothing short of putting oneself up for slaughter to not be ahead of the game.

The non-sequitor is that you state that it is individuals who perpetuate evil, then you say it is a societal problem. This is a flawed argument because society does not and can never have mind control over individuals. And it seems that people do not accept that individual perpetrators have their own minds and choose to ignore societal standards. And regardless of what the current societal standards are, there will be evil individuals who will actively and purposely choose to be outside those standards. There is nothing society can do about that, as that is the action of individuals purposely disregarding societal standards.

Now, if society were capable of mind control, and did nothing to control perpetrators’ individual acts of evil, then I would agree, it would be a societal problem.

However, back in real-ville, it is all on the individual at the moment of committing a crime, but it also on the potential victim to understand the environment that allow crimes to be more easily committed and to not purposely make oneself an easier target. That is just common sense. The evil perpetrator is depending on you to be stupid or lax and loves the fact if you do not take the proper precautions against him / her.

Fundamentally, being aware of how to keep oneself safe and out of harm’s way really is the first law of nature, i.e., survival. In contrast, going into the middle of a known fray depleted of any personal defense and hoping that nothing happens is not, as not even the dumbest, non-rational thinking animal on earth does that thinking its initial safety is someone else’s problem.

Until all potential victims (and everyone is a potential victim of some crime at pretty much all times) understand that perpetrators are in fact evil and do not give a hoot about them, societal standards, or laws etc, then there will always be victims who could have very easily prevented themselves from being such.