UVA thread...temporary

<p>Concerning the NYT article about a drunken date rape, Pizzagirl writes:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>She chose to drink. She could have stopped drinking.</p>

<p>That being said, [people</a> eat more soup when their bowl is constantly refilled.](<a href=“http://foodpsychology.cornell.edu/content/bottomless-bowls-why-visual-cues-portion-size-may-influence-intake]people”>http://foodpsychology.cornell.edu/content/bottomless-bowls-why-visual-cues-portion-size-may-influence-intake) The effect probably holds true for glasses and cups as well: people probably drink more when their drink is topped off, without realizing how much they are drinking.</p>

<p>I’m more interested in what happened later, how she now regards it, how she thinks he regarded it, and how we regard it. I urge you to read [the</a> essay](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/magazine/getting-to-no.html?_r=0]the”>http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/magazine/getting-to-no.html?_r=0) for yourselves, and not rely on my poor summary. It’s short, but thought-provoking.</p>

<p>@marie1234 “because there is quite a distance between a 7 frat boy pre-meditated gang-rape, an oral sex attack by 5 men who may or may not be members of the frat, and a fantasy conjured up by a disturbed young women who wants to make her Freshman crush Randy jealous with a fake story about a third-year complete with a hijacked photo and phony texts.”</p>

<p>And I view the re-release of the corrected story as confirmation that something pretty bad did happen that night, but some of the details were either highly embellished by Erdely or misreported by Jackie to her in an attempt to not identify the person. Either way the lack of fact checking is very shoddy and irresponsible journalism and Erdely will pay with her professional reputation for that omission. I think the jury is still out on Jackie and I myself am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt until the facts are in. </p>

<p>The facts may never be in since she’s not co-operating in the investigation. But, the facts that are in don’t help her story at all. For starters, the fake photo and fake texts and the fact that she had a crush on Randy. I just think she was used and the fact that a UVA rape advocate referred a sleazy so-called journalist to this girl of all people is another very disturbing fact. But, you’re making it sound like I think Jackie is the bad guy in all of this which I don’t whether her story is true or not. And, I admit not looks more likely to me at this point based on the current state of the evidence. </p>

<p>Also, S. Erdely is contacting the friends with apologies while RS is re-reporting. These things are currently happening independently of each other so it does not mean that RS has her continuing to report the story since she’s a freelance writer and does not work for the magazine. </p>

<p>The article is an interesting read. Her point on the “red zone” was that it might be easier for a woman to say, “Hey we’re getting into the red zone here” than to say Stop, I changed my mind or just No. I have been thinking about this and not sure that this would be any better. I think,as others suggest, that stronger language is needed than red zone (which is also a term used in football when a team is in a possible scoring position so probably not a good phrase for this usage). </p>

<p>As you said, CF, I too thought what she described would be rape, except it also seemed as if the man thought she was OK with it, and he seemed to think it meant they would have a relationship going forward. . Not clear that he plied her with drinks to get her drunk, or just kept her cup filled at the same time as filling his own. She implied he wasn’t just out for one night, but continued to ask her out. </p>

<p>She said:</p>

<p>I considered him someone between a brute and an oaf, my own experience falling somewhere between assault and just a bad night. I never felt I was a victim;</p>

<p>To me, the essay shows how complex this sometimes is. Another woman, under the same circumstances, may have rightfully felt like she was raped. I got the feeling that this woman felt like she hadn’t made a strong enough statement of refusal. And not clear how she ended up in bed with him after the party, but under current guidelines could certainly be too inebriated to consent. </p>

<p>LF:I am not entirely convinced that it is always in the best interest of young women to consider themselves victims Again, complex and not sure where the line is. </p>

<p>The key is to teach young women to have a voice: not just in this situation but in many. Girls are so far ahead of boys in high school, but somehow that advantage seems to get lost in many situations. Remember the article last year about the experiment at Harvard Business school? Prior to that there was a huge grade gap between men and women, in part because women were not assertive enough in class, which counted for 50% of the grade. My point is that somehow, as the NY times author said, women lose their voices in these situations. Maybe in addition to education about affirmative consent and bystander education, we need to help young women find their voices and speak loudly, firmly and apologetically if they do not consent. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t care if the guy thought it was OK and thought they would have a relationship going forward. She said no, he continued, that is rape, end of story. She was not OK with this. She said so at the time, and she says so now. </p>

<p>The author is looking for a softer word than “No,” that would have made him stop. She wanted him to stop, but he didn’t stop when she said “No.” She talks about how some of her friends couldn’t find the words to stop their rapists either. </p>

<p>I prefer “No” or a harder phrase, like Bay’s “Stop. You are raping me.” But then, “Stop. You are raping me” might have worked for her, but if a woman can’t find “No” when the sex is unwanted, is she going to be able to find “Stop raping me”?</p>

<p>Did I say victims? Yow. I said I chose not to comment further at that point about the gray. I edited out a long part that interfered with my main point: bad nights happened and we were blithe about them…unsupportive. I wonder how many times a friend of mine had a bad night (they did) and we treated it as part of the freedom trail. “Oh well.”</p>

<p>That doesn’t touch on rape. Or “victims.” </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2874267/Friends-try-correct-record-UVa-rape-story.html”>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2874267/Friends-try-correct-record-UVa-rape-story.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>A few more details in this article about screw-ups in the RS article. One of the friends who she called that night said he had his phone out and was about to dial 911 when Jackie stopped him. He also said that Jackie had called one female and 2 male friends that night. However, she would only talk to the 2 male friends, and made the female friend walk a distance away. That is the exact opposite reaction that most 18 year women would have in that situation. That is why Police try to have a female officer respond to calls about a rape.</p>

<p>One of the friends also said he talked to his RA about the incident. He said he didn’t provide a name to the RA, because the RA would have been obligated to call police, which Jackie had definitely not wanted. The RA said he should do everything he could to convince her to call police.</p>

<p>Also, the third friend has now fully revealed his identity, including his last name.</p>

<p>Sorry LF, you did not say victim. I was reading into your comment about having our daughters not just think Oh Well, which to me meant that they would feel more like they were being victimized than just treating it as a bad night. Now I am not sure what you were trying to convey. </p>

<p>CF: I agree that does not excuse him not stopping.She was not OK with it, but also did not feel like a victim, and is saying it was somewhere in between a bad night and an assault, so she is still not calling it rape. But of course no means no and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. </p>

<p>I also get bad vibes about her sending the female friend away. Odd to me but I have never been in that situation. Maybe she was seeking some sort of protection that she felt only males could offer, or was concerned with the female telling all the other girls. Let’s not forget that although these students are referred to as “friends” all of them had been at the school for a total of 2 or 3 weeks. So more likely these were the first students Jackie had met at UVA and they were still in the process of getting to know each other.</p>

<p>I still say there is one missing piece of information that once known will make sense of this whole mess. I am having a hard time understanding all the secrecy and lack of information. The story is out there and if it is the wrong one, then clear it up.</p>

<p>This may just flame further if we need a softer word than No. I’m thinking (thinking, not concluding) about a variant on Dstark’s suggestion. Maybe, “Bobby, if you don’t stop, it will be tantamount to rape.” </p>

<p>But, c’mon, Susan Dominus wrote, “women who told me they felt their consent was ambiguous said that in the moment, they froze, and language eluded them altogether: They said nothing. Because those words are inherently confrontational, they can require a degree of strength that someone who is feeling pressured or confused or is just losing her nerve or changing her mind might not have.” </p>

<p>You wana go softer than No, because it’s inadvertently confrontational? What a confused message.</p>

<p>We need to distinguish between what the person involved in the incident says about her feelings about the incident, and what is objectively true about the incident assuming the person is describing the facts accurately. If a woman says her boyfriend hit her several times and she ended up in the emergency room, but it wasn’t domestic violence and she doesn’t think of herself as a victim, we can respect her. Nevertheless, it was domestic violence and it was a crime, no matter what she may say.</p>

<p>Similarly, the NYTimes author talks about her conflicted feelings, about what she thinks about the incident and how she wants to regard it. She can regard it any way she wants, but facts are facts, and if she said no and he didn’t stop, that is rape. It’s not sort of rape, or not really a rape, or a fuzzy rape, or a murky experience, or just a bad experience. It’s rape. We outsiders should look at the situation unemotionally and call a rape a rape, because that’s what it is.</p>

<p>"Susan Dominus wrote, "women who told me they felt their consent was ambiguous said that in the moment, they froze, and language eluded them altogether: They said nothing. "</p>

<p>I relate very much to this, as I froze when I should have said no. I think it’s hard for someone who hasn’t been in this situation (and again, mine was NOTHING as horrendous as whatever happened to Jackie) to know that you can really sometimes freeze in cases of shock. I had one other incident in my life (not related to sexual assault) where I froze as well, and really just shut down physically and emotionally, and can’t remember the details, even though I know from others what the details really were. Of course, I don’t expect marie1234 to know or care.</p>

<p>That was a really great article. The one paragraph that impacted me the most was:</p>

<p>“The language we use for a given experience inevitably defines how we feel about it. I could not land on language that felt right — to me —about that encounter. I still cannot.”</p>

<p>I think that is probably true, and maybe why we still have some girls reporting rape too late to get the legal satisfaction that they ultimately want and or need/deserve. They probably have hazy memories and attitudes about it and then talk to a friend that makes them change how they feel or helps them sort it out. I think she does acknowledge in the piece that what happened to her was sexual assault by legal definitions but still does not know if that is how she feels about it. She is entitled to that. I don’t feel anyone should make her feel worse about it if that is how she is dealing with it.</p>

<p>One thing I hope, is that maybe for some young girls as we empower them more each and everyday that they are not uncomfortable with the confrontation she speaks of in the essay. I know I feel, in terms of empowerment that things have changed for women since the 90s. Even though there was the sexual revolution it still was not without many older people still judging girls that didn’t wait until they were married etc., so effectively girls were doing what they wanted and acting like they were liberated but deep down inside not really? Did this stop them from speaking up or reporting. It must have.</p>

<p>We need more education for our young boys and girls. I think sometimes when people are reading about these incidents they picture only the really gruesome or sickening ones, like jackies (true or untrue) or the FSU one with a large predatory football player following a girl home. When I suspect that the majority of the incidents reported on colleges campuses are very young people many who are inexperienced. </p>

<p>Education, awareness and sensitivity is the only way we are going to reduce the “gray” incidents. </p>

<p>Mom2and, apologies for jumping at you. </p>

<p>Dominus’s words (my excerpt) struck me, about a time, a place, a context. A bit of an omg moment. Right now, I can’t shake a sense that, back then, we may have blithely ignored or downplayed some of our friends’ stories. Or, some of our own, as Dominus wonders. (I don’t mean we dismissed them. I’m not using the words, "victim, or “rape,” right now. But we probably too often just chalked up unintended sex to a random “bad night.”) In the intervening years, we have this conversation about consent. </p>

<p>Yes, we need more conversation. </p>

<p>ps. it doesn’t bother me that RS will re-address this. It bugs the holy H out of me that they will make a fortune on that. I’ll bet they know it, too.</p>

<p>I agree with you Mama, individuals should be able to determine if they are a victim (or not) and if they want to press criminal charges or not. People are going to feel differently about their actions sexually. I’m sure in the 60s when the BC pill became widely available, 70s 80s, 90s and even today there are/were women who are not comfortable with their sexual activity (or lack of it). So much of it depends on our upbringing and family situations.</p>

<p>LF: I think that was why it was such an interesting article, as it made the complexity clear and made us think about what may have happened to us or others. I get that a woman might freeze up or not be able to convey that she just doesn’t want this to happen. How do we get beyond that? How do we empower women to say no forcefully and not give in because it is too much trouble or too scary to make our wishes known (even if not too drunk to care?). </p>

<p>The other thing that stuck with me was </p>

<p>“In an ideal world, clear consent will always precede sex, and young women (and men) who do find themselves in a tricky situation will express their discomfort firmly. But in the imperfect world in which we live, new language — if not red zone, then some other phrase that could take off with the universality of slang — might fill a silence.”</p>

<p>Disregarding the red zone idea, the point being that in the real world, communicating about sexuality is difficult - especially among kids but even among middle-aged married folks. It is not always easy to express what we want or don’t want, especially if it might make the other person unhappy. But of course, in this case, our sons need to hear that no mean no and everything must stop until a yes is given without pressure on his part. What sounds so clear in the light of an ordinary Monday, may be much less so on a Saturday night in a dorm room. </p>

<p>The other thread appears to be working again. I just posted </p>

<p>There is a major story from the Daily Progress. That is the Charlottesville paper. If true, the president and the dean are going to have to answer a couple of questions.</p>

<p>There’s nothing new in that story, but Chief Longo will get to the bottom of it once and for all. Jackie didn’t want the cops involved and if there’s no Drew they probably already know that by now. Stay tuned.</p>

<p>There is a lot new. The dean didn’t tell the president for two years? This is before the RS article was printed.</p>

<p>When the president heard the story, what did the president do? This is before the RS article. This was in Sept. </p>