Flawed Narratives, Perfect Victims, and the Columbia Rape Allegations

Can reviving the old myth that women never lie serve justice in any way?



In recent months, Emma Sulkowicz (pictured), the Columbia University senior who carries her mattress around campus as a protest against the university's non-expulsion of her alleged rapist (and an art project for her senior thesis) has been hailed as a heroine in the battle against campus sexual assault. Last week, The Daily Beast published my article about the case—based mainly on interviews with the alleged rapist, Paul Nungesser, and materials he provided—which raises serious questions about the pro-Sulkowicz narrative, partly because of her friendly behavior toward Nungesser for weeks after the alleged rape. The response from the rape-culture feminist camp has been to argue that there's no "right" way to deal with sexual assault, generating a #TheresNoPerfectVictim Twitter hashtag. But it's a straw (wo)man argument. Yes, of course victims deal with trauma in different, often startling ways. However, "no perfect victim" doesn't mean that anything an alleged rape victim says or does, no matter how it defies common sense, reason and human experience, must be rationalized as "that's what some victims do!"  in deference to the commandment, "Believe the survivor."

I should add that when I first read the New York Times account last May of Sulkowicz's claim that the university badly botched its investigation of her complaint, I thought she probably had a legitimate grievance. She was alleging a violent rape by a man who had been reported for sexual assault by two other women but had always managed to beat the rap. (At the time, my main reaction was that such cases need to be handled by real cops and courts, not campus "gender equity" bureaucrats and pseudo-judicial panels.) But as I read more details of the story, those details raised more and more questions.

At this point, I cannot, of course, definitively state that the allegations against Nungesser are false. But there is more than enough doubt of his guilt to warrant exoneration not only in a criminal case—it's safe to say that no grand jury in the land would indict him, unless it was made up of gender studies majors—but under the low "preponderance of the evidence" standard by which Columbia adjudicates sexual misconduct complaints.  

Remarkably, the panel which heard Sulkowicz's charges cleared Nungesser even though he was apparently not allowed to present strong evidence in his favor: his Facebook communications with Sulkowicz in the weeks following the alleged rape. Just two days after Nungesser supposedly brutalized her, Sulkowicz responded enthusiastically to his invitation to a party, writing that "we need to have some real time where we can talk about life and thingz (sic)." A few days later, she contacted him to suggest they "hang out" before or after the meeting of a literary society to which both belonged, adding, "whatever I want to see yoyououoyou." (There's much more in the Daily Beast story, including screenshots of the messages—confirmed as authentic by Sulkowicz herself.)

The other two complaints, filed shortly after Sulkowicz's charge and clearly influenced by it, turned out to be riddled with problems as well (many of them evident in the very first detailed report on the case, published in January 2013 in Columbia's online student magazine, Bwog, and highly sympathetic to the accusers). One woman, Nungesser's former girlfriend, accused him of emotional and sexual abuse which she did not regard as such until long after their breakup—and did not decide to report until Sulkowicz approached her to discuss Nungesser. (Her complaint was eventually dismissed, partly because she stopped cooperating with the investigation.) The other, Nungesser's housemate at a residence run by a campus literary society, claimed he had grabbed her and tried to kiss her at a party over a year earlier. She made the complaint after learning that he was facing another accusation of sexual assault, a few days before her graduation—and apparently with the encouragement of an officer of the society who had earlier tried to have Nungesser ejected from the house. Nungesser was initially "convicted" on this charge and placed on disciplinary probation; the finding was reversed on appeal and the second hearing cleared him.

In spite of all these murky circumstances, Nungesser, "outed" last May, has been not only ostracized on campus but treated as a presumptive criminal in the media—with the negative attention magnified by Sulkowicz's newfound fame as a mattress-toting activist—and branded a "serial rapist" in a press release by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. If he is innocent of any crime, and he may well be, he has a pretty strong argument that he is a victim of grievous harassment, condoned by the university (which has given Sulkowicz carte blanche for her project) and enabled by politicians.

When I was working on my story, I had no doubt that the true believers' response would be to argue that nothing in the record discredits or even casts doubt on the charges against Nungesser, that rape victims often behave in ways that don't fit stereotypical expectations—especially when attacked by someone they cared about—and may often remain in denial about the rape and act affectionately toward the rapist.

It didn't take long. The tone was set by a piece in the online publication Mic by feminist blogger Julie Zeilinger deploring "the narrative of the 'perfect victim,' in which female survivors' stories are evaluated in terms of  gender stereotypes such as those related to idealized virginal purity and simplified fallacies about uniquely felt and lived experiences, like the identity of a rapist and the nature of the relationship survivors have with them."

Actually, the only fallacies here are Zeilinger's, since her critique has nothing to do with the questions raised by the Daily Beast article. As far as I know, no one has ever suggested that Sulkowicz's lack of "purity," or the fact that she had previously slept with Nungesser twice without being in a romantic relationship, makes her a "bad victim." It's what happened after, not before, the alleged rape that matters.

Zeilinger also asserts that "some women do not even realize they have been abused," citing a  study in the journal Gender & Society which reports that teenage girls "frequently wrote off abuse" because they saw it as normal male behavior.  But, aside from the fact that the study is filled with radical feminist jargon and tendentious interpretations, what it found was that girls—primarily from troubled lower-class backgrounds—tend to shrug off minor sexual harassment like being touched on the butt, not violent rape. (They are also benighted enough to believe that being pressured into sex isn't rape if you have the option of saying no.)  It's hard to see what bearing this has on Sulkowicz's claim of a brutal, painful anal rape during which she was allegedly slapped in the face and choked so badly that, in her words to the New York Times, "he could have strangled me to death."

Even more bizarrely, Salon's Katie McDonough tried to portray Sulkowicz's behavior as consistent with rape by invoking the horrible recent rape case at Vanderbilt, in which the victim had consensual sex with her boyfriend in the morning unaware that he and three others had raped her the night before when she was blackout drunk and unconscious. The flaw in this analogy is rather glaringly obvious.

I can readily believe that when a rape happens in a previously consensual intimate situation and involves minimal force—for instance, when the man holds or pins the woman down and has sex with her despite her verbal protests—neither perpetrator nor victim may think of it as rape or assault, especially if they know each other well. (If that was Sulkowicz's story, the friendly messages would not have been nearly as damaging to her credibility.)

On the other hand, when activists talk of not realizing they had been raped and staying friendly with their rapists for some time, it's not always easy to tell if they mean what most of us would recognize as actual rape. It could be regretted drunk sex, or giving in to unwanted sex because you didn't have the nerve to say no or because you were nagged, coaxed, or guilt-tripped into it. It could be something like Lena Dunham's so-called rape, in which she admits that she verbally encouraged her "rapist" and was able to halt the encounter as soon as she chose to—but still eventually decided to call it rape, apparently because she didn't feel in control of things and was handled more roughly than she would have preferred (and because the man may have taken off his condom).

Of course, as Cosmopolitan political writer Jill Filipovic and others have pointed out, many domestic violence victims stay with their batterers even after brutal assaults. But this usually happens when victims feel trapped and isolated; often, the abuse escalates gradually and by the time it reaches severe levels, the victim is too psychologically and/or economically dependent, or too scared to get out. Moreover, even in ongoing abusive relationships, a violent outburst is typically followed by a show of repentance from the batterer and a promise not to do it again.

In Sulkowicz's case, the claim is that an Ivy League student with abundant social resources was suddenly and horrifically attacked by a male friend who had never been violent before—and that she went on to exchange chatty, flirty messages with him and offer to have a "chill sesh" two days later and continued to have similar interactions for another two months. I have yet to see a single expert say that this is common behavior in rape victims. (Amusingly, The New York Daily News' Victoria Taylor asserted that "experts backed up Sulkowicz" in her claim that she continued a friendly relationship with Nungesser because she was "confused," then cited the president of the New York City chapter of the National Organization for Women.)

In an interview to Mic's Zeilinger, Sulkowicz elaborated on why she sought conversations with her alleged rapist: "I wanted to have a talk with him to try to understand why he would hit me, strangle me and anally penetrate me without my consent." But the tenor of her chats with Nungesser seems, to put it mildly, inconsistent with such a motive.

Do communications—even affectionate communications—with the accused after the alleged rape automatically discredit a rape report?  No, of course not; it depends on the communications and the circumstances. In these specific circumstances, you'd have to be a hardcore ideologue to deny that these specific communications are highly relevant and highly damaging to Sulkowicz's case.

It is also useful to recall that only a couple of months ago,  virtually identical arguments were made on behalf of the now-debunked Rolling Stone story of a brutal fraternity gang rape at the University of Virginia. The "discrepancies" and improbabilities in Jackie's story, advocates asserted, were typical of victims' reaction to  trauma, and only "rape apologists" and "denialists" would use them to brand the story a hoax. 

Obviously, Sulkowicz is not Jackie; the man she accuses of rape actually exists, unlike "Haven Monahan," and there is certainly not enough evidence to brand her a false accuser as some are doing on the Internet. But there are parallels. Both cases involve a story of a shocking rape much less ambiguous and more violent than the typical claim of campus sexual assault (obviously far more extreme in the Rolling Stone case). In both cases—again, much more so in the Rolling Stone story—there are too many details that don't seem to make sense in light of what we know of human behavior. In the UVA story, it was Jackie's friends supposedly dismissing her brutal gang rape as a minor unpleasantness and the chief rapist supposedly approaching her a couple of weeks later to say he had a "great time." In the Sulkowicz story, it's both Sulkowicz and Nungesser engaging in casual, amicable online chitchat after his alleged brutal assault on her.

The advocates' reaction to the new evidence in the Columbia University case makes it plain that for many feminists, disregarding any evidence or argument that may interfere with "believing the survivor" is now a matter of principle. The danger of such an ideology is self-evident. In his 1995 book, "With Justice for Some: Victims' Rights in Criminal Trials," veteran Columbia University law professor George Fletcher wrote, "It is important to defend the interests of women as victims, but not to go so far as to accord women complaining of rape a presumption of honesty and objectivity." Striking that balance is an essential task for the justice system; to abandon it is to endorse a lynch-mob mentality.

* * *

After the original version of this article ran at RealClearPolitics.com, I appeared on MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry Show to discuss my article and the ethics of reporting on sexual assault. The "discussion" was a barrage of constant interruptions and derailments, but the most telling moment happened during the break before my segment when I had just joined the set. Harris-Perry was complaining that all this talk about the need to get the other side of the story when it comes to rape accusations was terribly unfair because, for instance, when we do a story about ISIS, we don't ask ISIS for comment. (Maybe that's because ISIS actually puts out videos in which they saw people's heads off or incinerate them. If there was a video of Nungesser choking, hitting and raping Sulkowicz, I can guarantee that no one would be going to him for his side of the story. Also, he'd be in prison.) Jelani Cobb, the panelist who did not get to say a word during my segment, gently tried to point out that checking the facts when it comes to accusations is important; as an example, he cited Joe McCarthy accusing people of being communists with no evidence and ruining their lives.

Harris-Perry's response: "Yes, but he was just throwing out accusations! Women don't do that!"

And so, after the Duke lacrosse team fiasco, after Brian Banks losing ten years of his life to a false rape charge, after the University of Virginia rape hoax, we're back to the rape myth of our time: Women never lie.

An early version of this article appeared at RealClearPolitics.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Alabama Judge Defies Federal Gay Marriage Ruling, Another Snowstorm Hits Northeast, Rand Paul Readies for 2016

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Well written, challenging article. The narrative surrounding sexual assault in this country is hysterical: either women never lie, or rape is an over reported fantasy.

    Hopefully more coverage like Cathy’s will allow for a more reasoned conversation.

    1. A lot of people feel that rape is over-reported (false accusations). That is not a hysterical position. And while a narrative that rape is a fantasy would be hysterical, Has anyone actually posited that?

      1. Actually, rape fantasies are very common among women:


        Given that they are so common, it may often be hard to untangle fact, memory, and fantasy of some event.

      2. I don’t think there is any scholarly work that would indicate that the number of false rape accusations exceeds the number of unreported rapes. Not that this means the feminist narrative on rape culture is accurate for the most part, but overall there’s no evidence to suggest than the reported rape rate is higher than the actual rate.

        1. That is because a majority of all rapes exist in the grey area where one party honestly and truly believes they have been raped and the other honestly and truly believes that it was consensual sex.

          Even worse, which is correct is largely a matter of opinion on where exactly one draws the line between what is and isn’t rape.

          Then there is the problem if what is an accusation.

          It is ridiculously easy for a woman to tell everyone she meets that she was raped but never report it to authorities who could investigate and prove her wrong and even tell a researcher that no she wasn’t raped.

          If she is fabricating a rape claim she gets almost every single benefit that she was looking for by just telling her friends and family and never reporting it so the overwhelming majority of actually fabricated rape claims never show up in the stats.

          1. “That is because a majority of all rapes exist in the grey area where one party honestly and truly believes they have been raped and the other honestly and truly believes that it was consensual sex.”

            Do you have a source for this? How exactly would you prove this?

            Also, the guy I was responding to was saying rape was “over-reported.” Which is referring to accusations reported to police. Neither he nor I were talking about women who weren’t raped, but claim they were raped and never go to the police.

            1. That’s the challenge of grey areas, it’s very difficult to prove how large that area is. It’s much harder to prove how many unreported crimes there are as opposed to reported crimes. Also, what comes into play is the fact that both sides come with biases.

            2. “Over-reported” might mean police reports, but more likely means survey reports – from which the now-discredited one-in-five statistics were gleaned.

              It can also mean reported to school Title IX offices but not to either police or researchers.

              The surveys which show unusually high rates of sexual assault also define such things as unwanted kissing or touching through the clothing as “sexual assault”.

            3. When college Title IX tribunals are required by federal policy to define almost any unwanted bodily contact as “sexual assault” and to also define as assault any sexual act in which the woman was drunk but not legally incapacitated, then the grey area becomes the largest section of the story.

          2. Not that you sound bitter, or anything.

            Cite? Source? Or does it just “feel true”?

        2. In fact, a number of scholarly research reports indicate high rates of false rape allegations (rape, not just “sexual assault”).

          McDowell (Air Force, 1985) 27%, Buckley (DC, 1992) 24%, Kanin (small Midwestern town in which polygraphs were used, 1994) 41%, Kanin (two large Midwestern state universities) 50%. To be judged “false” there had to be an unambiguous recantation by the complainant, rendering these figures conservative.

          In the McDowell Study, a follow-up evaluation was performed on the “inconclusive” cases by three independent reviewers, based on a list of 25 criteria that were common among the women who had acknowledged they lied. In order for any of the inconclusive cases to be recategorized as false, all three independent reviewers had to agree that it was false. This increased the percentage of false allegations to 60%.

          In the study of false rape allegations in the Midwestern town and state universities, more than half of the accusers fabricated the rape to serve as a “cover story” or alibi, following consensual sex with an acquaintance that led to some sort of problem for the accuser, such as contracting a sexually transmitted disease or becoming pregnant. The next most common reason was revenge, rage, or retribution (27% of the non-student and 44% of the student accusers). The Air Force study also found that spite or revenge and the need to compensate for a sense of personal failure were the primary motives for false rape reports.

    2. Hopefully more coverage like Cathy’s will allow for a more reasoned conversation.

      The people pushing this idiotic narrative aren’t interested in having a more reasoned conversation. thye just want to be able to ruin any man’s life at any time.

      1. Yep, see her commment about the article in Mic – no factual argument, totally about those ridiculous SJW terms and classifications they use since they can’t argue with facts.

    3. “Obviously, Sulkowicz is not Jackie; the man she accuses of rape actually exists”
      physically yes, but in personality
      actually he doesn’t exist – if the sex was consensual which it is readily apparent it was, that is an entirely different man than one who violently attacks women.

  2. Yeah, I just can’t buy the claim that Sulkowicz was raped, and then spent two months trying to get back together with Nungesser. The preponderance of the evidence is that they fucked, Nungesser wasn’t interested in continuing, and Sulkowicz cried “rape” for revenge.

    Seems to me that Nungesser should be suing the school, Sulkowicz, and her cheering section for slander.


    1. Yeah, I just can’t buy the claim that Sulkowicz was raped, and then spent two months trying to get back together with Nungesser.

      Love the rapist hate the rape?

    2. I’d be willing to bed that Sulkowicz would pass a lie detector test when asked if she was raped.

      The problem with cases like this is the women convince themselves that they were raped after the fact and then their brain fills in details that never happened but they none the less believe them to be completely and utterly true.

      1. You say, “I’d be willing to bed that Sulkowicz”

        Are you sure? She would probably accuse you of rape.

      2. Lie detectors are shit pseudo-science.

  3. BTW, as I’ve mentioned before: have any of these people who say that women never lie about rape accusations demanded that Bill Clinton be punished for raping Kathleen Wiley?


    1. Some of them probably have. We wouldn’t have heard about that because A) The mainstream media has no interest in acknowledging that Boy Clinton was a serial abuser and B) no Right Thinking rape activists would talk to the kind of people who would report it outside the Liberal Silence Dome.

    2. I think it was Juanita Broderick who accused him of rape, and Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones who accused him of unwanted groping and sexual harassment respectively. Apparently though those are the only three times in history that a woman ever lied about such a thing!

      1. Well, given the collapse of sexual assault and rape into rape that Obama is pushing with the 1-in-5 lie, Bill Clinton raped those three women and anyone else he even ever looked at sideways.

        1. New Jimmy Carter: “I’ve committed rape in my heart many times”?

  4. Was totally shocked that the daily beast printed Young’s original article. Blew me away. Almost like they wanted to present a BALANCED and fair-minded assessment of the whole incident. WHODA THUNK IT?!??!

    1. Monty,

      This is outrage bait, a subspecies of click bait. Imagine the number of page views for the beast when outraged SJWs post angry responses, tweet them, & retweet all their friends’ angry responses. Withg any luck, some reactionary neanderthal will post an ungrammatical reply [real or fake], guaranteeing a fresh new round of clicks, tweets, memes, ‘crafty’ beta males impressing cute classmates by posting jeremiads in support of all rape accusers — indeed all women suffering through life in this awful, AWFUL patriarchy….it never, ever ends & but the ad revenue accumulates.

  5. God, I’m beginning to think that getting raped is the new LUG: you’re not being trendy unless you have a good college rape story.

    Yawn. Bored already.

    1. No shit, it used to be that everyone was fondled as a kid, but I guess that isn’t enough.

      Hey, I was raped!

      What is next on the logical evolution of being a victim? I don’t ask that rhetorically, I’m serious.

      They are already eating their own, with who can claim to be a victim. What is next?

        1. but then I died.

      1. Seriously, though, this is a good question. Once people get desensitized to their current victim type (and let’s face it, people always get desensitized because SJWs and the other obsessives are utterly incapable of subtlety or restraint, they go FULL RETARD in everything they do, they can’t help it), they always have to go “one louder”. So next thing will go to 11. And then they’ll need to go “one louder” after that. And so on.

        It should be interesting to see what they escalate to next after they burn everyone out on rape.

        1. I think they bank on short memories and a compliant media and just regurgitate thinks in a cycle. Expect crosses to burn, gay drug dealers to be hung from fences, satanist child molesting day care centers, detachable magazines run amok…and it just goes on and on and on.

        2. I was going to suggest not just vaginal rape, but anal rape, also, but this girl already broke that particular bit of ground.

          Maybe some additional porn-like qualities. “He raped me then gave me a Peter North-esque facial!”

      2. I was turned into a newt!

  6. Zeilinger also asserts that “some women do not even realize they have been abused…

    ‘Cause PIV is always rape, ok?

    1. Wow. That’s a…disturbing worldview that sheila has.

    2. Why would you deliberately read anything called “witch wind”?

      1. btw are you sure it’s not a parody? Wind has more than one meaning and I doubt anyone could be so stupid as to use the word to refer to their writing.

        1. No, not parody. She really is that disturbed

    3. PIV is a man mounting on a woman to thrust a large member of himself into her most intimate parts, often forcing her to be entirely naked, banging himself against her with the whole weight of his body and hips, shaking her like he would stuff a corpse, then using her insides as a receptacle for his penile dejection.

      Wowzers. I just realized (again) that I have fuck-all for a sex life. I’m gonna go sit in the corner and drink now.

      1. What do you suppose she thinks that those most intimate parts are for?

        1. Actually she addresses this (I confess to having reas the entire article, it’s like watching a car crash):

          The vagina’s primary function isn’t to be penetrated by a penis but to eject a baby for birth. They are two muscle tissues / sphincters pressed against each other to help the baby be pushed out.

          Party of SCIENCE, bitches! There is literally not a vagina on this planet from any godforsaken species that was made for penis penetration!

          1. Well, someone had to read it all.

            That’s just bizarre. I think anti-sex feminists like that must just be extremely sad and damaged people. I almost want more to pity them than mock them. Something really horrible must have happened in their past to warp their minds so badly.

            1. You’re a charitable person. Let’s see how far your charity goes.

              Go read the same blogger’s vision of what a women’s Utopian world would be like, and report back.

              1. I’m charitable, but not a masochist.

                1. You probably only have to read the first section of that particular post 🙂

            2. On the other hand, who’s going to take care of all those cats?

              1. Takes all kinds to make the world go ’round. I’m not to worried about the anti-sex maniacs. The slightly more mainstream feminists are much more dangerous.

                1. I’m not to worried about the anti-sex maniacs

                  Some problems are solved more quickly than others by evolution

            3. These “radfems” are not anti-sex, just anti-men (or misandrist).

              “I feel that man-hating is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” ? Going Too Far: The Personal Chronicle of a Feminist (1978), by Robin Morgan, editor of Ms. Magazine, whose earlier anthology, Sisterhood is Powerful, was cited by the New York Public Library as “one of the 100 most influential books of the 20th Century”

              “Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman.” ? Andrea Dworkin, feminist author

              “All men are rapists and that’s all they are.” ? Marilyn French

              “I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire.” ? Robin Morgan

              “Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.” ? Andrea Dworkin

          2. AT the risk of inviting crude mental imagery. . . . If her statement is true than that was some spectacularly unintelligent design! Or bad evolution.

    4. Where do blowies fit into this Weltanschauung?

  7. Here’s why (nearly) everyone on the internet is wrong but me.

    1) I think people overshoot when they assume they know for sure that Sulkowitz is fabricating. We just don’t know. As I understand her story, she got attacked by Nungesser, a longtime friend and occasional f-buddy, and basically wrote it off as a one time freak occurrence until she found other women who had allegedly also had bad experiences.

    That’s hard to square with texts like “We need another Paul and Emma chill sesh” or “I love you Paul!”, but I think that does happen.

    2) On the other hand, we also definitely do not know that her story is accurate, and there’s plenty of reason to be sceptical. I think Cathy Young has done some great work.

    Senator Gillibrand, the Jezebel writers, and the like basically conclude that because a rape allegation was found not likely to be true, a grave injustice has been done. In other words, any time more than one person make an accusation against someone, we should assume that person is guilty. That seems crazy.

    3) Both Sulkowitz and Nungesser are unhappy with the procedures Columbia employed – each of them thought she or he should be able to introduce more evidence than was allowed, and Sulkowitz was offended by the detailed questioning about whether her story was plausible and thought she got bad advice from her student advisor.

    IHMO, the procedures are where a lot of the action is, and can be as important as the standard of proof.

  8. The other, Nungesser’s housemate at a residence run by a campus literary society, claimed he had grabbed her and tried to kiss her at a party over a year earlier.

    I can’t help but wonder why it is that feminists are arguing for free birth control, when in their view it’s a “crime” for a man to even try to kiss a woman. Jesus crackers, somebody has to take the initiative if a kiss–or anything else–is ever going to happen. Haven’t any of these people ever been on a date?

    1. Haven’t any of these people ever been on a date?

      That’s a rhetorical question, right? I mean, would you go on a date with a self described feminist activist?

      1. Yeah, it’s a rhetorical question. Either these people have never dated in the real world or they’re being deliberately obtuse.

        1. Or they’re power-mad sociopaths who want to have the ability to destroy others’ lives at their convenience.

          1. DING DING DING we have a winner!

    2. That’s the whole fucking issue. Most of these self described feminists, have you seen them?

      But fucking ugly. They are basically men haters because no man would ever have anything to do with them.

      1. But fucking ugly. They are basically men haters because no man would ever have anything to do with them.

        Nonsense. Ugly women find men all the time. And there are plenty of men who identify with that kind of feminism.

        1. Ugly women without impossibly high standards find men all the time. Those who are expecting the proverbial Fonzie with a Ph.D. who’s making a solid six figures to come and sweep them off their feet after they’ve left their 20s behind and have serious personality defects to boot, not so much.

      2. agreed – they are mentally ill too – have Gender derangement syndrome and have as much pathelogical desire to control and humiliate men sexually as a male rapist does toward women – feminists can’t do it physically so they try to do so psychologically, legally and sociologically.

        Very sick shit if you ask me

    3. Well generally it’s helpful to be on a date first if you want to try and grab someone to kiss them. But to answer your question, no they probably haven’t.

  9. The revolution devours its own:

    Columbia student accused of raping classmate who has been carrying her mattress around in protest ever since breaks his silence to insist he is a ‘feminist’


    I suspect that a lot of the vociferous support for feminism by young males has less to do with politics and more with being appealing to women. Feminists, on the other hand, just like to see men grovel. It really is stereotypical fairy-tale sex roles, tending towards S&M.

    1. It’s also the indoctrination males seem to be getting in at least these elite universities.

      Also, I’ve seen a couple of pictures of Sulkowicz carrying her mattress and she’s always wearing the same clothes — I know she’s doing it as a protest and art project, but the media makes it seem like she carries it everywhere, I think that is BS.

    2. It really is stereotypical fairy-tale sex roles, tending towards S&M.

      I’ve kind of noticed this, myself. Listen to the SJWs talk about men. Now, imagine a woman talking to a man that way. How it would differ from a dominatrix isn’t particularly clear.

    3. “I suspect that a lot of the vociferous support for feminism by young males has less to do with politics and more with being appealing to women”

      No really, you think?

      but they’re usually such buff, sporty, handsome, confident-looking types?

    4. its young liberal men trying to get laid – they think that if they identify with feminism they Will score bonus points- more likely they will end up with a man hating bisexual who will humiliate and psychologically castrate him.

  10. “a study in the journal Gender & Society which reports that teenage girls “frequently wrote off abuse” because they saw it as normal male behavior.”

    Maybe they wrote it off, since they weren’t “abused”.

    1. agreed – perhaps she just mis-remembered like liberals are apt to do

    2. A Study Conducted by Left-Wing Gender-Studies Freaks Who Define ‘Certain Words’ as Inherently Exploitative, Abusive and Oppressive Revealed that Young People Who Had Never Read Judith Butler or Andrea Dworkin Routinely Frequently Brushed Off Patriarchical HeteroNormative Oppression as ‘Normal’; Obvious Conclusion that More Young People Need Radical Feminist Indoctrination Was Quickly Reached

      1. Andrea Dworkin -disgustingly ugly man hating pseudo sociologist/intellectual who defined all penetrative sex even by consenting heterosexual couples as RAPE.

        Guess the only way a woman can get pregnant is if her lesbian partner squeezes the bulb on the turkey baster according to this train wreck of a human being.

  11. If that dude did not have those social media interactions he would be in a rape cage by now.

  12. I think it’s great for feminists to carry mattresses around campus. We should encourage that behavior and build on it. What about carrying beer kegs or truck tires or putting themselves in ball-and-chain in the future? All of those have great symbolic value, and they discourage mobility!

    1. All of those have great symbolic value, and they discourage mobility!

      Not to mention the more time spent carrying kegs or dragging truck tires around campus pretty directly decreases chances of being physically overpowered.

    2. Rapecob Marley

    3. make it easier to tell who they are so as to avoid them. That way when you won’t have sex with them and end up with a false claim of rape so they can be a hero/martyr for the feminist cause.

  13. It’s only Via the media that this complaint will finally get the Due Process that Columbia University Administration has intentionally not given the involved parties, and that the courts, if I have it right, declined to.

    What I still don’t understand and can only guess as to the answer of is WHY has the media, with very few/minimal exception, as well as members of current US Congress and Senate, used/allowed this particular complaint to become The Go-To Example of anti-sex assault and harassment on USA college campus WHEN there are several other less ambiguous complainants also submitted against Columbia University, in particular those complaints filed against Columbia University Professors and Columbia University Heads Of Departments And Centers, available to refer to.

    1. IMHO, it’s a combination of:

      1) The mattress project is a very effective piece of art, so the story got a lot of play.

      2) The Gillibrand/Jezebel narrative is that it is essentially immoral to question the veracity of any rape charge. From that viewpoint, it’s offensive that three women accused this guy of various things but Columbia didn’t kick him out.

      3) Nungesser didn’t get his side of the story out until recently. I think a lot of people took his silence as a tacit admission.

      1. Didn’t Cathy or ENB write the same thing — why use these examples rather than the real rape at Vanderbilt as your hill to fight on?

        But since they want to paint campus rape seem like Ghengis Khan is riding from Columbia to Duke to Stanford, any example will do I suppose.

        1. Bronze and silver medals in the Oppression Olympics just don’t cut it anymore. Gotta go for the gold, baby.

        2. Didn’t Cathy or ENB write the same thing — why use these examples rather than the real rape at Vanderbilt as your hill to fight on?

          I suspect that these examples are used because they allow the radicals to change the definition of ‘rape’. The Vanderbilt case doesn’t work because it was obvious (and extremely rare compared to drunken booty calls).

      2. very effective piece of art,

        It’s a piece of something, but “art” isn’t what I would call it.


        1. It’s art if she says it’s art. It might not be very good, but that’s another question.

      3. Since Harper Lee in in the news lately, I keep waiting for someone to criticize her for suggesting that people might lie about rape sometimes in To Kill A Mockingbird.

    2. That’s a very good question, as this and the UVA story if anything raised the very important point that often these stories are taken as gospel by certain activists when the facts reveal very good reasons why no one was ever prosecuted.

      My guess is the stronger cases–where the evidence pretty clearly points to rape–don’t get this far in the media because those cases get prosecuted. When the activists find a case like Emma’s, they think they have something solid from listening to her account, and they are ideologically opposed to analyzing her case critically or even seeing if there is any evidence that might go against her case, so these things only emerge after she was made a cause celebre.

      There’s a good lesson here for everyone of any ideology–analyze your own case critically, because the other side certainly will once you go public.

      1. The thing is is that for these rape obsessives, this is the case they want to flagellate and push. They’re not interested in pointing to a real, confirmable case. They want to make unconfirmable cases an automatic presumption of guilt. They’re trying to expand where guilt is automatically assumed, so they need to push the ones where it isn’t but they think it should be.

        Never forget that these people aren’t interested in justice or even rape victims. They’re interested in their little obsessive political war, in being gender partisans, and hurting those they don’t like. They just latched on to rape because they could use it as cover. Note how incredibly hard they want to push the concept that rape victims cannot be questioned. Because this means their motivations can’t be questioned. And that would be really useful to them.

        1. That’s why they’re dangerous to society. The only thing that could ever get them to pull back is when one of their own loved ones gets caught up in this neo-McCarthyite hysteria.

        2. Psychologists describe a phenomenon they name “splitting” as essentially seeing people as either all bad or all good.

          It is very common in the cluster of personality disorders that include borderline & narcissistic personality disorder.

          I am of the opinion that splitting is essentially the product of an immaturity when it comes to emotional relationships. Toddlers engage in it – but by the time most people are 10, they have moved beyond it.

          Think of your greatest love – a mature person can name a few flaws their greatest love has – ones that the person is neither blind to those flaws nor precludes the person from their feelings of love. This is what someone who engages in splitting is incapable of doing.

          They come across a kindred spirit, and that person must be 100% good, because they aren’t bad! And anyone who says that they might not be 100% good must be 100% bad themselves!!!!!

          1. It also explains TEAM behavior perfectly. My TEAM is 100% good, your TEAM is 100% bad.

            Of course, if this is correct, this means there are a LOT of people with personality disorders that include borderline & narcissistic personality disorder out there. A whole hell of a fucking lot.

            1. No, it merely means there are whole lot of immature people out there.

              There’s a hell of a lot more to BPD and NPD – false allegations for example… hey!

      2. Liberals(feministas) will continue to push the white men/rapists narrative because their movement has run out of places to go. Women already have equality- they can hold any position men do if they work for it, They can kill their babies if they want to because having a child may be inconvenient.

        They have to hold on to the campus rape narrative to attract young dumb liberal women who are easily persuaded by truthful sounding lies

  14. I just read this in “The community of the wrongly accused”: “I do have to wonder whether the feminist community will ever accept the legitimacy of a verdict or college hearing determination if it isn’t what they had hoped for.”

    What I wonder and am waiting to see is what the feminist community will do when an accusation of rape or assault is made, and both the accuser and the accused, who denies the accusation, are women.

  15. I believe Brian Williams was raped on campus. Several of them.

    1. he will claim that only if it advances his career and makes him look good to one of his liberal audiences.

  16. Ah yes. Campus rape. The trifecta is complete.

  17. my buddy’s mom makes $86 an hour on the computer . She has been out of a job for 5 months but last month her check was $15207 just working on the computer for a few hours. site here…………….
    ????? http://www.netcash50.com

  18. generating a #TheresNoPerfectVictim Twitter hashtag

    And you thought this scenario couldn’t get any more banal.

    1. Wouldn’t you want to hang out with someone who chocked and anally raped you?

      Oh, wait… Look who I’m asking.

      1. Choked. I am too traumatized to spell correctly.

        1. Choked. I am too traumatized to spell correctly.

          Chocked works too. If the person is physically round, it could be helpful.

      2. You really should think before you ask these questions, NutraSweet.

      3. isn’t rape by definition non-consensual? No wonder there are no libertarian women.

    2. I actually cannot wait to see what the next meme is after Caring Hashtags. I just can’t imagine anything stupider, and yet I know my fellow humans can do better. It’s exciting!

      1. I know. I mean, you know the next thing will be stupider. But how much stupider? Will it be bonecrushingly stupid? Oh, I just can’t wait to find out!

        (claps hands gleefully)

        1. My money is on something expressly personal and obviously linked directly to yourself. Your Twitter account is just too damn removed from your actual caring social-justice-warrior body.

          I am thinking buttons. Like in the old days. With pithy slogans, or possibly just clever logo designs. I say button machines make a comeback, and in fact I’ll go one further and say that Leading Clothing Designers will then create high-end clothing lines with button holes on the left chest so you don’t ruin your fancy designer dress.

    3. ” this scenario couldn’t get any more banal.”


  19. “… doesn’t mean that anything an alleged rape victim says or does, no matter how it defies common sense, reason and human experience, must be rationalized as “that’s what some victims do!” in deference to the commandment, “Believe the survivor.””

    Yes it does!


  20. Wait, weren’t you the writer that had her really unprofessional emails published on Jezebel a little while ago? I’m pretty sure you’re also the one that fell for the old and dust updog.

    Yeah, I’m not taking anything you write seriously since you’re a “writer” but yet can’t even handle composing emails.

    1. Well then, run along EvanH; we grownups will keep talking!


      “Your stuff written without an editor is messy so I don’t have to listen to you! LA LA LA LA LA!”


    3. Yes, Jezebel published her “unprofessional” emails, which we so unlike the professional articles on Jezebel that discussed fishing a rancid tampon out of yourself with tongs or offering a reward for unphotoshopped images of Lena Dunham.

      1. I cannot tell if these are things that really went on there or not. Is there a fake Jezebel headline twitter feed?

    4. A Jezebel troll! Excellent. Get comfortable and stay a while.

    5. Jezebel was making fun of someone’s casual writing style?

      Given their “professional” articles, I can’t imagine what a Jezebel writer’s email looks like. It’s probably a mix of abbreviations and GIFs, with at least 50 exclamation points.

    6. EvanH do you still beat your girlfriend?

    7. I’m pretty sure you’re also the one that fell for the old and dust updog.

      What is this supposed to mean?

      1. It’s a practical joke used by Jezebelians as a sort of hazing ritual.

        Basically the victim thinks she is about to get laid and instead gets a dusty broom handle inserted in one of her orfices.

        Sugarfree can fill you in on the details.

      2. The very traumatized girl that Paul N. “assaulted” with his mouth (and who decided that getting this horrible rapist off campus wasn’t worth the trouble after she graduated) played a sophomoric joke on Cathy when contacted about the case. Hardy-har-har. But Cathy is the “unprofessional” one.

        1. Wait, wait, wait, what?

          1. Which part?

            1. What was the sophomoric joke?

              1. You couldn’t tell? You must have had updog in your ear.

                1. That’s…that’s their gotcha? They’re putting that forward as a reason why Cathy should be ignored?


                  OH GOD


                  (keels over)

                2. OMG! These people *are* toddlers!

                  1. No, really. It’s that dumb.

                  2. They’re at least 6

                3. Something is missing in that transcript.

                4. And people thought that was clever and said something about Cathy Young?

                  Updog sounds like just as likely a name for a social networking platform than Twitter or Pinterest.

        2. Seriously, give details. I have no clue what you are talking about.

          1. IIRC, one of the people Cathy was trying to interview said she couldn’t do phone or Skype, but was willing to chat on Updog.

            Now at this point, a PROFESSIONAL journalist would say “I’m sorry, I don’t have Updog – can we use AMatterBaby?”, but instead, Cathy said “What’s Updog?”

            1. BURN!!

              1. Can’t resist weighing in here. You know, I actually VERY briefly considered posting a screenshot of that exchange myself to illustrate the level of maturity with which one of the alleged victims approached the issue. But that REALLY would have been unprofessional.

                Have to say, I’m slightly flabbergasted by Jez regulars who seem to think they scored a point with this…

                1. Wow. I wish you would have posted that, as it’s rather informative as to state of mind.

    8. Evan, the fact that you are oblivious to admitting you consider form more important than content says all I need to know about you.

    9. “her really unprofessional emails published on Jezebel “

      Wow. Was this like, next to their TOTALLY PROFESSIONAL ‘JOURNALISM’?!

    10. Because, like, Jezebel writers don’t write in an unprofessional manner at all, duh!

  21. Any false accusations of rape not only tar and feather the accused, but also make it worse for actual victims.

    It is the most despicable of things, so accuse on falsely of such a crime.

    1. “a shot was fired” in the passive voice.

  22. She has nice legs.

    What, too soon?

    1. It’s never to soon for good legs.

    2. Could you grab them?

  23. The more level headed activists could probably address the Facebook messages issue, and allow that perhaps Emma hasn’t told her story completely accurately but that she may have still been raped. Maybe the rape wasn’t quite how she described (rather than him slapping her and bruising her, he just forced into her anally) and they remained on friendly but strained terms afterward. It could be that she embellished her story over time–sometimes thinking back over something you put emotions in your head that weren’t there at the time, or genuinely misrembember how things went down–but was still raped. It also could be that she wasn’t actually raped–maybe she’s completely lying, and trying to destroy a guy she came to hate for other reasons. Or maybe it was some gray area–he entered her anally with what he interpreted as tacit permission and she didn’t want him to.

    What is clear though is that no one should be accepting her story uncritically, and all she is entitled to is a fair and thorough investigation when she reports this. Fitting this into a political agenda is dangerous for justice, and does nothing to address the rapes that do occur.

  24. Jezebel’s hit piece on Cathy Young.

    A breakdown, no need to give gawker clicks.

    1. i hate gawker so much. it is an example of what’s wrong with the internet.

    2. I thought, after Robby’s assfucking of the Jezebel crew and Anna Merlan in particular (and yes I am choosing my words carefully here kiddies), that they might be more journalisty and careful the next time.

      So much for that.

    3. Is there a way to not give them clicks without giving clicks to a website called “The Alpha Report?”

      1. The only problem is that the extra hits would just go to a site focused on hedge fund returns.

      2. a website called “The Alpha Report?”

        It’s called “The Ralph Retort”, actually.

  25. “who carries her mattress around campus as a protest against the university’s non-expulsion of her alleged rapist (and an art project for her senior thesis)”

    She made her rape part of a senior thesis for an art degree?

    1. Wouldn’t you if you were the victim of a violent, invasive crime?

    2. Yup. Campus wide performance art.

    3. In the Kafka-esque world of Columbia, I’m surprised she hasn’t been brought up on charges for appropriating the (rape) culture of the white, cisgendered male.

      1. Eh, it’s easier than learning to paint or draw or sculpt or even throwing together some sort of bullshit video installation.

        1. What is more real and what is more art? This or “alien autopsy?”

          1. The alien autopsy had more craft involved.

          2. You mean that wasn’t real?

    4. If her accusation is true (and I have no opinion whatsoever on that as I know nothing about this particular case) and the rapist faced no consequences, I don’t see much hugely odd or perverse about making a public spectacle of the fact. It’s probably not what most people would do. But art students often aren’t like most people.

      1. Doesn’t it lend itself to the suggestion that the rape itself might be some sort of performance art?

        1. Yeah, sure. Many explanations seem plausible. I’m just feeling extra-pedantic today.

        2. Consider what else might be art. Might false acusations be art? Now we’re getting somewhere.

  26. After the original version of this article ran at RealClearPolitics.com, I appeared on MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry Show to discuss my article and the ethics of reporting on sexual assault.

    BIG MISTAKE. Melissa Joan-Harris is often hysterical, and not in the good way. She is basically a caricature of the logic-impaired woman.

  27. Disagree. There is “enough evidence to brand her a false accuser”. Her post-sexual encounter behavior contradicts her claims of rape. In fact, this article spent most of its time saying just that.

    Also, she had to be convinced some time after the fact that she was “raped.” Absent situations wherein the accuser was incapacitated, if a person is unsure if she was raped or must be convinced (usually by some feminist radical) that she was raped, then it’s probably safe to say she wasn’t actually raped. Regret isn’t rape. Awkward or drunken sex isn’t rape. One can’t withdraw consent after the fact.

    1. Her post-sexual encounter behavior contradicts her claims of rape.

      Not really. People behave in strange and irrational ways all the time.

      I don’t know enough to have an opinion one way or another about this. But you can’t assume that because people behaved in ways that you wouldn’t have that they are making stuff up.

      1. nice try but her actions all but refute that the sex was not consensual. If she wanted to report the crime then she should have went to police within the first 24 hours – that is what a real crime victim does – goes to the police not waiting months later while having a congenial relationship with the accused.

        1. I’m not trying anything. I have no idea. And I am in no way attached to her story being true.

          If she wanted to report the crime then she should have went to police within the first 24 hours – that is what a real crime victim does

          No, that it what a real crime victim should do. People are idiots and do things wrong all the time. People also make shit up. Either could have happened here, or some combination of the two (e.g. maybe she consented to sex, but not butt-sex.).

        2. What a crime victim SHOULD do isn’t often what they actually do–particularly where the perpetrator is someone they know intimately. Think of victims of domestic violence who don’t report–it can be because they fear the attacker, or are dependent on the attacker, but it also can be because they initially blame themselves (“I provoked him”) or love the attacker (“s/he is good to me and this is an aberration”).

          It’s possible Emma still had feelings for Paul after he raped her, and maybe initially considered that she might have given him the idea that the anal intrusion was welcome. She could even have mental problems of her own, leading to strange behavior on her part after the fact.

          I’m not saying I think she WAS raped, what I’m saying is it’s not impossible simply because her behavior was odd or illogical. Such behavior tends to support the defense, but doesn’t automatically rule out guilt.

          1. Of course, the real travesty here is the masses who took Emma at her word uncritically and have already been issuing death threats at Paul. Considering the red flags of her story, he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

  28. Harris-Perry was complaining that all this talk about the need to get the other side of the story when it comes to rape accusations was terribly unfair because, for instance, when we do a story about ISIS, we don’t ask ISIS for comment.

    My brain was just savagely choked and raped by Melissa Harris-Perry bewildering intellect.

    I hope that she and I are still getting together this Saturday.

    1. Your last line is icing on the cake.

      Harris-Perry is a dangerously stupid woman and her comment is a glaring insight into the darkness of true fascism. The very idea of “why get the side of the accused?” is anathema to a free society, and considering this woman’s racial background (being part black) it is shocking that she could be so blase about the rights of the accused considering what black men have been going through historically in the criminal justice system.

  29. Sexual assault case[edit]
    In the summer of 2002, Banks was arrested and charged after classmate Wanetta Gibson falsely accused him of dragging her into a stairway at Polytechnic High School (Poly) and raping her. Faced with a possible 41 years to life sentence, he accepted a plea deal that included five years in prison, five years of probation, and registering as a sex offender. Wanetta Gibson and her mother Wanda Rhodes sued the Long Beach Unified School District, claiming the Poly campus was not a safe environment, and won a $1.5 million settlement.[18][19] In March 2011, Gibson contacted Banks on Facebook, met with him, and admitted that she had fabricated the story. Banks secretly recorded Gibson’s confession, but she refused to tell prosecutors that she had lied so she wouldn’t have to return the money she and her family had won in court. Nevertheless, with Gibson’s taped admission and help from Northern California Innocence Project attorneys, Los Angeles County prosecutors overturned Banks’ conviction on May 24, 2012.[19]

    Jesus Christ.

    1. Nevertheless, with Gibson’s taped admission and help from Northern California Innocence Project attorneys, Los Angeles County prosecutors overturned Banks’ conviction on May 24, 2012.

      10 years. 10 fucking years after the fact. A whole decade wasted, all on the whims of a lying sociopath who didn’t want to surrender ill-gotten money. What a goddamned travesty.

      And to hear the Jezebelians say it, false accusations never happen.

      1. Well, they believed the woman, didn’t they? Both when she made the accusation and when she retracted it.

  30. “The response from the rape-culture feminist camp….”

    Really? Do we need to ask at this point? Because I think their M.O. is well understood.

    The ‘survey of insights’ from the Usual Suspects of Rape-Culture-Hysteria seems completely unnecessary at this point. I could easily gin up their own copy for them. It writes itself.

    In fact = I would pay good money for a Jezebel-Doll that recites dogmatic RadFem cliches when you pull the string on its…. uhm…. well, where would *you* put the string?

  31. where would *you* put the string?

    On the tampon?

    1. (i was trying to be subtle. like, ‘hint hint’.)

      1. I am incapable of subtle.

  32. who carries her mattress around campus as a protest against the university’s non-expulsion of her alleged rapist (and an art project for her senior thesis)

    Pro-tip for you young college kidz: Don’t trust ANYONE who turns their victimhood into a performance art project. Don’t. Just fucking don’t. You may now return to Tweeting and Buzzfeeding.

    1. or uses it for “college credit”

      Got to question the institution that gives her college credit for that

    2. Paul should sue the university for enabling this “project” as it amounts to defamation. Imagine a different scenario–Paul slept with Emma, and claims he got an STD from her. He goes public with this claim, which she denies, and he gets Columbia to let him write his thesis on how he got the STD from her and he carries a mattress around campus to draw awareness of STD-carrying women who sleep around and let men catch the STDs.

      How well would that go over? And why is this different?

  33. #NoPeakRetard

  34. certainly makes me want to have a relationship with a woman!
    Contrary to popular belief, false accusations like the one in the story are fairly common. Look at what happened recently at UVA – the facts of the case were entirely inconsistent with the testimony of the the accuser, same with the Duke Lacrosse case.

    Hard truth is this: if you want to file charges of rape,

    A. be sure that a rape occurred. if you initially wanted to have sex and sex began happening don’t act as if you were raped. The time to choose to not have sex is BEFORE YOU BEGIN.
    B have your facts straight, if you don’t then it is very very hard to prosecute a case. The minute your facts become blurred, then the defence has reasonable doubt.
    C report the rape Immediately not Months later
    D don’t have a warm and fuzzy relationship with your attacker afterward- despite what “experts” say that is NOT appropriate conduct for a crime victim

    The Accuser did none of the above and is not a credible person. Most likely she is a woman scorned and wishes to be a HERO/MARTYR for the feminist cause.
    The accused should sue her and the University for slander and damage to his reputation. It is very telling the NYC police never prosecuted him because her story was so flimsy.

    1. I’d be suing Senator Gillibrand with a quickness considering she called him a ‘serial rapist’ in a press release.

      1. I’d be delighted to be a college kid winning a slander suit against a sitting senator

  35. “in which female survivors’ stories are evaluated in terms of gender stereotypes such as those related to idealized virginal purity and simplified fallacies about uniquely felt and lived experiences, “

    So if uniquely lived experiences are so important why is the accused’s uniquely lived experience where the sex was consentual ignored so thoroughly?

    1. doesn’t fit the feminist narrative. – its why I plainly described why feminism and Libertarianism are wholy inconsistent- feminism seeks female advantage over men – mens thoughts, feelings and rights don’t matter to feminists

  36. So, women are pure and blameless creatures who are far too delicate to be expected to exist in this temporal realm because they can neither understand nor control their own emotions and cannot be expected to deal with any situation that exceeds the boundaries of their own personally defined comfort zone? Is this what feminism and progressivism have given us?
    Sweet holy lord, let’s hope a new Enlightenment dawns soon and casts away these shadows of ignorance and human manipulation.

  37. Honestly this is one reason why I simply ignore women for the most part. I’ll be courteous and polite when necessary, if interacting with some woman I work with, or with women I encounter out in public. But in the end – unless I want children, which I most certainly do not – women are a waste of time and money. I would rather hang out with my dogs.

  38. Where will future Bill Clintons come from if they are ruined in college?

  39. Let’s have an editorial cartoon showing Sulkowicz and “Jackie” in Puritan garb telling Justice John Hathorne that Nungesser transformed himself into a satyr and caused their scholarly ideas to be born with deformities. We could examine him for “rapists’ marks” and press him to (social) death– ostracism– if he refuses to plead guilty.

  40. As someone that most of you would probably classify as a “SJW”, the level of frothing, irrational rage in this comment thread brings joy to my heart — if this is the intellectual level of the average anti-SJW, and if Cathy Young’s sad attempt at a counter-argument is the best that your movement’s writers can provide, then our winning streak is probably going to continue unabated.

    In short: you guys aren’t very bright, and your tears are delicious.

    1. You’re seeing tears? You might need professional help

    2. Your winning streak? What have your type won? The gays don’t have your ilk to thank. I’m willing to wager it’s more that the media has finally shown that people really didn’t hate gay people like you all have thought all along. You’re losing the whole rape culture thing as new studies have completely decimated your 1 in 5 BS. You’re losing on the animal rights front as states are now solidifying hunting and fishing rights in their Constitutions. You’re losing on the unequal pay, class, and race fronts as well.

      I for am glad that none of your ilk are not leading our armies. You’d snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with your incompetence and deceitful ways.

  41. “Yes, but he was just throwing out accusations! Women don’t do that!”

    This is the ultimate logic of the “believe the woman” dogma, and it contributes to the very “perfect victim” trope that rape-victim advocates decry.

    Yes, women are as libidinous as men. Yes, women make the same bad decisions as men about using alcohol to lubricate a hookup. Yes, women engage in self-serving excuses for their behavior at least as often as men. And yes, women are generally far better than men in using emotional manipulation to get the attention they seek.

    Yes, women do, all too often, make false claims of sexual assault – particularly when they have a supportive advocacy community willing to uncritically believe every word they say and to defend them by any means necessary against the defamation they so willingly mete out to those they accuse – even moreso when that advocacy community extends from the college administration to the media, the US Congress and the White House.

  42. For the history of the shift of the Women’s Rights Movement from an egalitarian to a totalitarian one, see: When Progressive Social Change Becomes Regressive Ideology: From Women’s Liberation to Cultural Misandry

    For the backstory on the way the meme of “rape culture” was created from the misandric feminist leadership and eventually insinuated into almost every facet of US society, including nearly every media story on the “epidemic” of campus sexual assault, see: All Sex is Rape ? All Men are Rapists: Patriarchy = Rape Culture

  43. For an in-depth expose of the evolution of universities from institutions of higher learning into witch-hunt tribunals for the “rape culture” advocates, see: New Puritanism ? New Paternalism: The “Rape Culture” Narrative Demeans Women, Demonizes Men, and Turns Universities into Witch Hunt Tribunals

    The deprivation of basic constitutional rights for men and their attempts to fight back are addressed in: The Pendulum Reverses ? Again: The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses & Men Strike Back against Title IX Tribunals

    Domestically and globally, men and boys are victims of sexual violence at rates equal to those of women, and are assumed to be villains whenever a woman accuses: Men are Twice-Raped

    Two studies ? both by highly-qualified women academics ? have undermined the almost universal stereotype of sexual violence and taken the lid off of the well-hidden problem of male sexual victimization by both women and men: Two Sexual Assault Studies Contradict Stereotypes

  44. Once a rape-goat, always a rape-goat. Rape-goat = someone you assume you can safely accuse of rape when you feel like it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.