Video was filmed over her senior year winter break and while she claims it is not meant to be a re-enactment, she has the same hair and has time stamped the video August 27 2012, same date as the alleged attack by Paul.
She claims it’s not a re-enactment in the same way that a play is not a re-enactment.
100 years ago, mattress girl’s actions would have sent her to a psychiatric institution. In 2015, it works as a senior dissertation.
So does the making of this art project (filming herself “recreating” graphic sex that turns rough and violent complete with choking, slapping and the removal of a condom after she apparently says no ie rape) make any of you more or less likely to believe her allegations against Paul?
Is it completely separate? Does the project have nothing to do with real events? She claims it is separate from Paul and the mattress project, and yet the date on the film…
Do you think it possible that a rape survivor would make such a film, especially one which hews so closely to events that allegedly really happened to her? Is it a way to work through her trauma, by reenacting it for the world?
Or do you find she has lost all credibility with this “art”?
Personally, the shreds of doubt I had left re her story have been picked away to a very few after this stunt. I just can’t understand how she could be violently raped as she alleges and be as traumatized as she claims and then put a graphic reenactment out there for everyone to see in the name of art. I would not claim to know how a rape survivor would act, but I haven’t really heard of someone working through it like this before.
I don’t think this will make more people believe her.
I understand that our reactions are intended to be part of her project. I think that is why she is leaving so many horrible comments up on the site.
Maybe I just don’t get art these days.
(I have not seen the video, but from what I have read it contains multiple real sex acts and violence perpetrated on Emma by her “co-star”. And yes, I know she prefaces it by saying it was all consensual.)
I don’t intend to watch, but a number of articles are quoting her intro to her video, and I thought it interesting. The way she redefines “consent” means she does not understand the word consent.
Let’s say I bake a cake, and I tell you, you may taste this cake only if you agree to find this cake delicious, otherwise I don’t give you permission to taste this cake. If you don’t find the cake to be delicious, or if it gives you hives or food poisoning, then you tasted it without my permission. If you do not like the taste of this cake tgen you in fact stole your bite of this cake.
That’s her redefinition of consent.
I hope this young woman can find some happiness and positivity in her life.
I find her writings obscure, but I think she’s saying that I have to agree to some things before I watch the video; otherwise she doesn’t consent to my watching it. But I admit I’m not sure what I would have to agree to.
Her writing is beyond obscure. It is downright weird.
She is essentially unstable, like Jackie from UVA, and attention-loving, like Kim Kardarshian, rolled into one person who just happened to hold all together long enough to get an Ivy League degree.
To add to the rambling on that website, I find these quotes of hers re proof even more revealing:
“When people demand proof of an act of sexual violence, ask yourself why they want to frame this as a science.”
“If we use proof in rape cases, we fall into the patterns of rape deniers.”
“If we keep trying to prove it [rape] exists, we will never get anywhere.”
“When a person claims that their theory is a science, they disqualify other types of knowledge.” **
I can only shake my head. I am beginning to understand why the president of Columbia was incredibly smart not to shake her hand. That would be endorsing idiocy, and he did not want to give her that photo-op.
And yes, I am still confused why people seem to attach themselves to such unstable females to promote their causes, as if they are examples of normal females. I darn sure hope Emma does not represent the new normal female.
** Hat Tip to @bearpanther for providing the link to the above quotes in an earlier post.
When I’ve looked at writing about art by artists, it frequently appears to me to be impenetrable gobbledegook.
“Totally plausible that Sulkowicz is a bunny boiler and opportunist who has parlayed her situation into a major success. Also plausible that Nungesser is a creep who messed with the wrong girl, and is now getting his just desserts in an epically” karma is a b****" way. I wouldn’t bet a lot on this one. But I’d put $10 on bunny boiler."
I’m now willing to up my bet a little bit. To…$100…BILLION…dollars…!!!
I wonder if Sen. Gillibrand will be asking Emma to attend the State of the Union adress next year?
I got really lambasted a few months ago for saying i thought she was a nut job. But i stand by my words 
I am no fan of Emma S, but I think this is going too far.
100+ years ago women were institutionalized because their husbands found them rebellious. They “hysteria” was thought to originate in the uterus.
I do find it very interesting though that it is always men backing these projects. First Jon Kessler at Columbia and now Ted Lawson directing the video. Bona fide supporters or self-promoters looking for a slice of the publicity?
Is there actually a video? Has anybody seen it?
Oh, the video exists.
Have you seen it?
Does title ix protect Emma from having her internet sex tape cyber attacked? Poor girl has been victimized again.
"Emma Sulkowicz said a DDoS attack – which is an attempt to make a website unavailable by overwhelming it with traffic from multiple sources – is partly the reason her site is not working. As of Friday afternoon, the video on the site is still down.
In the video, posted June 4, Sulkowicz is seen having sex with a man who slaps her, chokes her, rips off his condom, and has violent sex in what looks like a dorm room."
Yes, I have seen it and I am confused.
Here I am trying to do research and people are trying to block others from watching. So much for free speech and free expression.
Emma’s site likely crashed because of all those people, like Stark, trying to do research.
But Emma believes she has been attacked again. Senator Gillibrand and DOE OCR are now investigating…