Rape

Mattress Girl, Mattress Attend Graduation—Hold Your Applause

Media ignores messy dispute between Emma Sulkowicz, Paul Nungesser, and Columbia University

|

Three important figures attended Columbia University graduation on Tuesday: Paul Nungesser, Emma Sulkowicz, and her mattress.

The last of these was not invited. University administrators emailed students earlier today instructing them not to bring "large objects which could interfere with the proceedings or create discomfort to others in close, crowded spaces shared by thousands of people." While Sulkowicz's mattress—the centerpiece of her public awareness campaign designed to shame Nungesser for allegedly raping her—wasn't specifically mentioned, many members of campus believe it was the intended target of the reminder.

It's easy to see why Columbia might have wanted to prevent Sulkowicz from carrying the mattress to the ceremony area: graduations are indeed packed events. But beyond logistical reality, the fact remains that Columbia is named in a Title IX lawsuit filed by Nungesser, who believes administrators were legally obligated to do more to protect him from Sulkowicz's accusations—accusations of which he was cleared.

Nevertheless, Sulkowicz was indeed permitted to bring the mattress to graduation. Multiple news outlets reported this outcome with glowing admiration for her achievement:

Forgive me if I don't slow clap. Unacknowledged in these headlines—and the stories that accompany them—is the fact that Nungesser was cleared of wrongdoing. The university found him innocent, based on a simple "preponderance of the evidence" standard, and the police decline to charge him. He's legally innocent.

Does that mean he never raped her? The only people who know that for sure are Emma Sulkowicz and Paul Nungesser. We have no way to conclusively tell who is lying. His lawsuit raises some interesting discrepancies in her account, and the record of messages between them bolsters his side of the story without tipping the scales in any remotely definitive sense.

But reporters who continue to give a platform to Sulkowicz should feel obligated to report that this is a messy, messy situation in which the facts are seriously disputed. The closest thing we have to an objective determination—the university's sexual assault trial—went in Nungesser's favor.

Lawmakers should take note as well. Samantha Power, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, cited Sulkowicz approvingly in her commencement address at Barnard College on Sunday. Missing from her comments was any hint of the broader controversy.

Knowing what we know (and what we don't know), anyone suggesting we should uncritically applaud Sulkowicz is either unscrupulous, or deeply misinformed.

Watch a video of Sulkowicz accepting her diploma below.

[*Update: Salon revised its headline and now calls Sulkowicz an "alleged" rape survivor.]

Advertisement

NEXT: Third Secular Blogger Hacked to Death in Last Three Months

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. Enjoy these times Ms. Sulkowicz, my guess it is all downhill from here.

    1. You don’t think employers will be rushing to hire her? (Although she’ll probably be hired by some women’s rights group or lefty foundation.)

      1. Her name and likeness will appear prominently in the promotional materials produced by whichever feminist organization hires her starting at $50K per year.

        1. Yes – no for-profit company would ever hire her. But she has a bright future in the grievance industry.

          1. But she has a bright future in the grievance industry.

            I don’t doubt her future in the Social Justice Warrior Media field either.

        2. It pisses me off to no end that hack activist shits like her will probably be able to translate her ill-gotten fame into a more lucrative “career” than many people who live normal, decent lives just trying to get by.

          1. Well at least those people will have the privilege of paying her through many government transfers into the grievance industry!

      2. My guess is she’ll get hired by Sealy, Serta or Simmons. Like Subway’s Jared, she’ll be their roving promoter everywhere she and her mattress goes. The slogan can be, “A mattress so comfortable, you can’t leave it at home.”

        1. I’m almost ashamed to admit I laughed at that. Almost, but not really.

        2. +1. Someone, plus turn that into a meme.

          1. Better yet, record an interview where you ask her about her successful mattress promotion campaign.

        3. “When I tell my paramour to fuck me in the butt, I’ve ensured that he sleeps on nothing but a Sleep Number Bed!”

      3. I’ve heard Serta (mattress company) is aggressively recruiting her.

    2. Sandra Fluke seems to have made a nice career out of the same thing.

      1. Anita Sarkesian.

        1. Yep. There is a thriving industry of fraudsters making money by manipulating the media so they look like legitimate victims.

    3. I’m disappointed that the mattress didn’t get a matching gown.

    4. Have bed. Will travel.

  2. who you gonna believe? the sane person or the nut that carries a mattress everywhere they go?

  3. I thought she was cute…..these new photos though, nope, my bad. On a positive note, let’s hope this further helps Paul Nungesser case.

    1. It does show Columbia’s continued willingness to violate their own policies in order to facilitate Sulkowicz’s continued harassment of Nungesser.

  4. Emma Sulkowicz is not a rape survivor, she is a slut and a liar.

    1. Slut? Come on, people. TIWTANFL

      1. He didn’t say it was a bad thing….

        1. Ok, so he did say it was bad thing.

    2. What does being a “slut” have to do with anything relevant here?

      1. Well it has to do with your mom. Shall I continue?

        1. Please do.

          1. Well all I remember is picking her up, then things just get really fuzzy. Next thing you know, I’m strangling my buddy in front of an audience of communists.

            1. I’m guessing Frank Sinatra and Angela Lansbury were there.

              1. No, actually. I vividly remember Denzel Washington and Meryl Streep.

                1. Now that’s a fucking party!

                2. I’LL KILL YOU

                  1. Why not play a nice game of solitaire to calm yourself?

        2. snort

      2. Emma Sulkowicz deserves to be slut-shamed because that’s who she is and because it hurts. She became a slut not when she had anal sex with someone she wasn’t in a relationship with, but when she decided that her one night stand was such a big deal. If it’s a big deal then you’re a slut if you sleep around.

        1. She became a slut not when she had anal sex with someone she wasn’t in a relationship with, but when she decided that her one night stand was such a big deal. If it’s a big deal then you’re a slut if you sleep around.

          Umm, what?

          1. Umm, what?

            Well, if Sulkowicz or Nungesser, through faith or maturity, had been able to keep it in their pants until a more stable relationship developed or a crazy meltdown ended things, there would be less of a spectacle.

            But, yeah, shaming for the sex act does in addition to the lying kinda degenerates into a race to the bottom.

            1. a race to the bottom.

              *narrows gaze*

              1. You got me, I’m a slut for puns.

                And I’m warming to the notion of calling her a slut. I wouldn’t call a porn starlet or a prostitute a slut.

                Have a regrettable one-night stand and are ashamed about it? Welcome to adulthood.

                Entice a guy into having sex, regret it, and then socially/legally weaponize it against him (lies and false accusations aside)? Expect some sex-specific shame to come your way.

                1. I never before knew that the definition of slut was “possibly have sex with one person and lie about it afterward.” Interesting.

                  1. It’s not the amount of sex you have, or the number of partners, that defines a slut. It’s whether muh penis approves of you as a person!

                    /derp

                  2. Sex was involved and she cried rape. The lie (at least partially) is about the sex. If we were talking about a consensual shooting that she claimed was non-consensual, we wouldn’t be acting like the shooting didn’t happen or wasn’t relevant, or that it was no big deal. If somebody said she had a grotesque anti-social gun fetish, we wouldn’t bat an eye about it.

                    She’s trying to subsidize her shame on those around her. The shaming isn’t for her promiscuity or sexual proclivity as much as it is for the anti-social bent she’s applied to her sexual activity.

                    Being a libertarian, you know you can’t eliminate the use of the word. So, might as well adapt it to situations that fit the description or find unusual and detestable situations to which to apply it. Saying ‘slut’ or slut-shaming isn’t appropriate here comes across as ‘ban bossy’ to me.

                    1. “The shaming isn’t for her promiscuity or sexual proclivity”

                      Therefore ‘slut’ is the incorrect word. She could have told the same lies while never having had sex with anybody – – – – and it would have been just as vile.

                      One problem with calling her (or Sandra Fluke) a slut is that then the argument becomes this messy thing about the morality of sex instead of what it should be;- which in this case is that you shouldn’t lie about being raped – especially if you name individuals. As for Sandra Fluke – it’s about paying you own way.

                    2. “The shaming isn’t for her promiscuity or sexual proclivity”

                      Therefore ‘slut’ is the incorrect word.

                      Okay, you got me. You morons win. I’ll just politely return to using the old definition where ‘slut’ just means shaming for being promiscuous and more directly with sex generally being morally icky.

                      I’d hate to piss of a few pedants and confuse others by applying it to a situation where sex actually was a significant portion of the problem morally and legally.

                      /sarc

                      If Emma isn’t a slut, who is? Seems like there are plenty of situations where a woman can have the same irrelevant amounts of sex, behave generally more honestly or straightforwardly, and still earn every notion of the term ‘slut’. What aspect of this situation makes you people rise to Emma’s defense? That she only did it once? That intentions were good? That it was somehow sacrosanct? That we shouldn’t discourage or shame her behavior? That there’s a slippery slope?

                      Maybe work on striking rape from the dictionary in favor of non-consensual sex? Wouldn’t want to use words to generate any messy confusing realities, much less accurately describe them, right? Add it to the list of trigger words too; don’t want to offend the girl who cried rape.

                    3. Oh good lord I was not defending the woman! Furthermore I have no problem with someone referring to her as a slut in a general sense. It is just that when we are discussing this particular act I would be hesitant to use language that would suggest she was being judged for her sexual morals rather than her basic human decency.

                  3. What Nikki said.

                    This should not, however, preclude anyone from calling her an unscrupulous cunt.

        2. Why would that make her a slut and not just a lying, immoral person? Why slut-shame her when you should just be, you know, shame-shaming her? She actually did something wrong, and it wasn’t fucking.

          1. Good girls aren’t supposed to like sex, Nicole. Only the dirty, dirty sluts like it. So dirty.

            I’ll be in my bunk.

          2. Methinks grizz has some unresolved mommy issues.

            1. No, it’s my gay male privilege.

          3. You’re not slut-shaming her by calling her a slut–you’re tarring her with a term that clearly upsets her–in much the same fashion as she’s tarred her victim with the term ‘rapist’ for the last few years.

            She thinks–or thought– that what she did was ‘slutty’. that he stopped wanting her around because she’d been slutty. And so she embarked on her little crusade.

            So you call her the thing that hurts her.

          4. What if she had lied about being robbed? That would make her an immoral liar, but not a slut? I’m not comfortable with the term because it equates sex with bad behavior,

            1. I’m not comfortable with the term because it equates sex with bad behavior,

              Well boo hoo. You can just stick to using words that don’t offend your fine sensibilities.

              I’m completely comfortable using the term in jest regardless of connotation. I don’t generally use it to equate sex with bad behavior (except in jest). And when sex and bad behavior do happen to co-mingle, if not co-incide, I’ll use the word as freely and aptly as the next rational libertarian who isn’t afraid of your sensibilities.

              Like I said above, my only reservation about using it was a slippery slope. But every time another forumite chimes in about his/her sensibilities on the topic, the more convinced I am that grrizzly’s got the right idea. She’s crying rape despite all the evidence to the contrary and you people are getting offended that someone would dare pronounce her as a heretic.

              1. Words mean things. Calling her a slut–a pejorative–means that you disapprove of her having had casual sex. That’s not the problem, obviously. She’s a liar of the worst order. Call her a worthless, slandering, half-smart, mendacious pissant with no future.

        3. You’re entitled to your opinion, Griz, but you’re not helping with the slut thing.

          1. He’s incorrect, and he’s not helping, but he’s not hurting, either.

            I honestly never thought I would see sane people in the Reason comments section discussing, without irony, the super-serious crime of “slut-shaming.” Get this Social Justice Warrior shit out of my sole internet refuge from moral panic nonsense.

            1. I was not objecting to ‘slut-shaming’. I was simply agreeing that what this woman apparently did was so much worse than any behavior that would be included in a working definition of slutty that the use of the word slut acts to minimize her crime.

      3. Lack of virtue

    3. I’m thinking “twat” is more apropos.

  5. Can’t wait to see her bring the mattress to her first job interview. Even a Masters Degree in Journalism from Columbia wouldn’t help her land the job.

    Oh, who am I kidding, she’s probably already clearing a cool $15,000 a year doing investigative reporting for Jezebel.

    1. She gets a bump to $15,000.05 once she joins the union.

      1. But the dues are $5,000 per year….

        1. +1 Communications Workers of America

    2. LOL So true….

    3. Who knows, if she puts the mattress to good use, it might actually help with her job interview.

  6. Achievement?

  7. Knowing what we know (and what we don’t know), anyone suggesting we should uncritically applaud Sulkowicz is either unscrupulous, or deeply misinformed.

    I’d also include another option: deliberately maintaining the kudos that Sulkowicz received in order to keep up the perverse incentives that attract people like Jackie and Sulkowicz to “come forward”. As far as can be told, she lied. The university and the police have found no reason to believe her accusations and several reasons not to. This should have negative consequences (for making false accusations), but that’s not what the rape obsessives want. They want no negative consequences for accusations of any kind, including false/malicious ones. That of course creates an utterly perverse incentive that attracts pathological liars and other mental cases.

    The continuing avoidance of admitting that Sulkowicz lied will potentially lead to more false accusations, since it will be seen that false accusations carry no penalty and at the same time will even get you feted by certain people.

    1. +1. Nothing must challenge the narrative.

    2. Yeah, regarding Robby’s comment the record of messages between them bolsters his side of the story without tipping the scales in any remotely definitive sense.

      Are you fucking kidding me? If her messages of affection to Nungesser for long after the alleged rape supposedly occurred don’t definitively tip the scales, then nothing does.

      1. Yeah, noticed that too. Robby Soave’s initial responses on these stories seem to be a predisposition to believe the accuser, then say it’s inconclusive if there turns out to be no evidence to support a rape accusation or if there’s anything less than a full confession of lying from the accuser. As I recall he was rather slow to believe that the Rolling Stone story was a complete fabrication, despite there being zero evidence that such a crime had occurred and ample indication that the accusations were exaggerated or unrealistic (which was most of the details of “Jackie’s” story).

        Granted, rape cases are rarely cut-and-dried, but I think he’d be better served with more skepticism towards accusers when their behavior post-incident doesn’t make sense in regards to the accusation…especially with cases in which both the college and police have cleared the accused.

        1. In those cases where it IS cut-and-dried, that the accuser lied, I believe a suitable punishment would be the maximum to which the accused could have been sentenced if convicted. So if a guy could get 10 years to life for rape – the bitch that lies gets life – no parole.

          Publicize a few cases like that and I’m thinking women would think twice about lying. (Probably still do it – but at least think twice.)

      2. Also, Soave’s comparison of this story to Rolling Stone – UVA in his original article was completely wrong. Rolling Stone and its source fabricated a rape that never happened. This is a story in which a woman apparently had consensual sex with someone, continued to communicate with them in a sexually charged manner afterwards, then made a flimsy accusation of rape that even an Ivy League school adjudication board (who love to ruin people’s lives) didn’t buy. Rolling Stone’s story was also about people who it turned out later didn’t exist…in this one the person accused of rape actually exists and has had his reputation destroyed by media outlets, despite the evidence pointing to his innocence.

    3. and at the same time will even get you feted by certain people.

      What, like f?te fetishists?

      1. Boo! Hiss!

  8. Chastity belts would solve a lot of these problems. I’m sure Apple could create a slick product with an embedded processor and touch screen display to lock and unlock the device.

    1. There’s an app for that!

      1. Swipe to unlock seems kind of a weak protection system

        1. If it’s an Apple product, swipe to unlock will be the least of it’s concerns. The first generation will need it’s antennae caressed appropriately, it will flex destructively when compressed under bodyweight, and the battery life will be on the order of 4-6 hrs.

        2. Swipe right for yes, left for anal.

            1. I looked over my shoulder before clicking that, knowing your sick proclivities.

        3. Well, there will be a 4-6 digit swipe/tap sequence to unlock.

          The vibrate feature comes with both manual or programmable modes (including random times & patterns)

        4. You just have to swipe in a rhythmic motion.

          1. Dude, why are you licking your phone?

            1. Mmmmm…phonulingus…

              1. Totally unrelated, but I have coined a new word: shunnilingus. I don’t have a definition just yet. Something something oral sex and shunning.

                1. I read that as shuntelingus, which I imagine is very different.

                2. Hey, that perfectly describes me and your mom!

                3. Work refusing to swallow in there. That’s an unforgivable crime.

                  1. You’re referring to something else altogether, spillatio.

      2. However the device works, it’s staying off my network.

    2. Also “affermative consent” override, that allows the wearer to instantly lock the device with a single phrase, no matter the current state of device and/or intercourse.

      1. Sounds painful.

      1. Not good enough – it doesn’t allow de-affirmation* of consent after the initial process.

        *or whatever is preferred terminology for what should be, but won’t, called “withdrawal of consent.”

  9. MTV: “Get Ready To Slow Clap ? Emma Sulkowicz Carried Her Mattress To Her Columbia University Graduation”

    Isn’t the slow clap usually a form of insult? At least, I’ve seen it used as such following extreme examples of retardation before.

    1. The slow clap is a fake clap intended to mock the act that precipitated the clapping.

    2. It’s sometimes used for that but it seems to also now be used for “clapping with amazement.”

      1. Is there nothing that millennials can’t fuck up. 😉

        1. You should try my new and improved deep dish pizza recipe.

          1. No such thing.

            1. The secret ingredient is the MSG crust!

          2. Not making it would be the improvement.

      2. I always took the slow clap to be a conventional signed of awed respect. Only recently, when applied to ironically to idiotic situations, indicating an awed respect for the level of stupidity achieved.

        1. Every time I saw the slow clap employed, it was usually prefaced by the phrase, “That’s more fucked up than a football bat.”

    3. I thought the SJWs wanted the clap replaced with jazz hands or something like that, anyway.

      1. Yes, clapping is too violent and triggering.

      2. Twinkle fingers!

  10. I don’t understand why she didn’t fail her thesis; I’m constantly seeing photos and videos of other people helping her carry the mattress.

    1. +1 Simon of Cyrene

      1. +3 Synoptic Gospels

      2. If she carried the mattress BEFORE the rape….

        Or is Sulkowicz expecting to get raped in the near future?

        1. It’s for whenever the mood strikes, I guess..

    2. “Even conceptual endurance art can be participatory, and by sometimes enlisting help, I draw attention to how society can….” zzzzzzzzzz

      1. Well it was ostensibly about how she was alone in “carry[ing] that weight,” i.e., because Columbia did not help her.

        1. But art evolves! “Sisterhood can help every oppressed woman bear the burden of patriarchal institutions….”

          1. So, more women saying, “We want to tell monstrous lies too!”

      1. (that was @ nikki’s first comment)

        1. Sadly I…really wish this was addressed somewhere.

    3. People rush to help her carry the mattress because of the obvious rewards that follow.

      1. What? They get to have sex?

    4. Mattress Brigade for the win. My 2 year old niece is more grown up than this juvenile, narcissitic twit.

    5. It takes a Village, people!!!!

      1. We are all cells in body of society…

        /corporatist

  11. ” We have no way to conclusively tell who is lying.”

    Not conclusively, but we kind of know…

    1. I don’t know about you, but there is no doubt in my mind about who is lying

    2. Yeah, I’m pretty much in the “conclusively” camp. Her supporters can claim “strange behavior by a trauma survivor” all they want. I’m of the opinion that no chick sends booty calls and longing messages to a guy for months after he literally raped her asshole.

      1. I know, that’s just so fucking ridiculous I can’t see how anyone could make that claim with a straight face.

      2. Maybe we’ll find out in next Season’s Game of Thrones.

        1. Don’t worry everyone, I’ve got this… NO SPOILERS!

        2. The show runners will have Sansa carrying her mattress around Winterfell.

          1. In GoT, that would be considered an invitation to a good time.

          2. The bedding ceremony?

  12. We have no way to conclusively tell who is lying

    Robby, we can conclusively state that Emma *has* lied!

    She has been caught in multiple lies as you’ve acknowledged in past articles. Nungesser has never, as far as I know, been caught in a single lie. Her documented behavior is utterly inconsistent with a rape having taken place. In short, the fucking text messages and subsequent behavior of the parties *does* tip the scales for anybody who has enough brains to add 2 and 3 and get 5.

    So I suggest that you grow the guts needed to call fucking spade a spade please, or alternately consider seriously switching to writing for a publication like Jezebel.

    I don’t think I am the only one of the regular readers at reason who question your integrity – your willingness to report facts even when they don’t fit the narrative you wish to be true.

    Your coverage of the rape moral panic and the Gamergate fiasco are rife with apparent episodes where you appear to be putting your thumb on the scale in an attempt to signal to the howling SJW mob that you are not really out-group.

    Bluntly, you are never going to get their grudging respect, since they eat their young and siblings the moment the going gets tough, and you are selling slivers of your reputation for nothing in return. All it does is turn off people like me; and once you lose us, you don’t get us back.

    1. You know, I don’t usually see cosmo or paleo-tarrian (seeing as how the first thing I learned when I came here was that if you put two libertarians in a room, they’ll find a way to argue about the colors of the walls), but all the little caveats and qualifiers Robby adds into his articles are hard to ignore.

      1. I don’t think it’s a paleo vs cosmo thing so much as a fear of speaking unpopular truths thing.

        Personally, I think the paleo vs cosmo dispute is waaaay overblown; Hell, I tend to be more cosmo than paleo, and yet Lew Rockwell once asked me to contribute an article to his site!

        What exercises me is that we seem to be in an era where people avert their eyes from serious misconduct and refuse to pass judgement on it, if the people committing the misconduct are politically untouchable.

        Emma Sulkowitz reminds me of the kids in the Klan during the days of Jim Crow who thought they could rape black girls with impunity and expected society to turn a blind eye to it. They don’t say “who cares, it was only a nigger whore who probably liked it” today, it’s “who cares it was only a white male with privilege who had it coming” but the fucking attitude is the same.

        Sure, she didn’t stab him and leave him in a ditch to die. She just knifed his future. And just like the boys who raped a nigger bitch and put them in their place she will be feted by her fellow outlaws for helping maintain a climate of fear that furthers their culture of oppression.

        1. “What exercises me is that we seem to be in an era where people avert their eyes from serious misconduct and refuse to pass judgement on it”

          It’s because deep down, we’re all the same and want the same things for our children. Now tow the lion and knuckle up for the coming mass arrests.

        2. Ex-fucking-actly

        3. Sooner or later, labeltarianism must always rear its head.

          1. Is that “Soave’s Rule” in the manner of Godwin’s Rule, or did someone else come up with it?

          2. For the record, I wasn’t labeling you a cosmotarian, just noting that the qualifiers are silly, especially when it has been shown that she is, in fact, a liar and that stuff like that is probably why the labeltarianism rears its head.

            Now, did you at least get invited to a good cocktail party? 😛

            1. Didn’t this whole fiasco teach us that sticking your cock in someone’s tail at a party could end badly for you?

              1. Actually, I’m thinking it will end well for him… especially when Columbia loses the $50 million lawsuit.

        4. Tarran, you made it back on Twitter… 15 more minutes for you!

          1. Nope:

            1) On twitter everyone only gets 15 seconds of fame. It’s like every human years being 7 dog years.
            2) She linked to designate’s comment so he gets to be famous for a moment.

            1. My 15 seconds were gone before I even knew I had them.

              Damn.

            2. It’s like getting credit for a tackle in JV, you were around the play.

    2. All it does is turn off people like me; and once you lose us, you don’t get us back.

      Well, it also gets you invited to swanky parties. So there’s that.

    3. Wait: “Willingness to report facts even when they don’t fit my narrative” is a bad thing?

      1. It’s a good thing, Robby; in fact, that’s what I mean by “integrity” when I apply the concept to journalism.

        1. I don’t think I am the only one of the regular readers at reason who question your integrity – your willingness to report facts even when they don’t fit the narrative you wish to be true.

          I think there’s a “not” or a “doesn’t” missing in there. “who DOESN’T question your integrity”

      2. I think tarran missed a word or two.

        1. I should have put in an “i.e.” after “integrity -“

    4. Her documented behavior is utterly inconsistent with a rape having taken place. In short, the fucking text messages and subsequent behavior of the parties *does* tip the scales for anybody who has enough brains to add 2 and 3 and get 5.

      None of that means we can “conclusively state that [she] lied.” None. There is no documentation that actually proves what she claims was impossible. Please let Robby be an ethical journalist without acting like it’s some affront to The Cause.

      1. Seconded.

        1. Thirded.

          It’s all very well to insist Suave take the front line and denounce her from the rooftops on behalf of those who’d really like to read such. It’s his ass that would be sued, and you know she’s about five seconds away from discovering the joy of lawsuits.

      2. But at the same time, the presumption of innocence for Nungesser continues to be completely absent. He gets to be the “maybe rapist” for all time because he can’t prove a negative. I think that’s why so many people find this case to be so galling.

        1. Yeah, I get that. But Robby can’t actually say she lied and made it all up, and readers should not expect him to.

          1. I agree with that, Nikki, but there could be a little less signaling on his part.

            But, let’s be honest, Robby’s mostly hated for his fabulous head of hair.

            1. but there could be a little less signaling on his part.

              And that’s tarran’s point.

          2. His lawsuit raises some interesting discrepancies in her account, and the record of messages between them bolsters his side of the story without tipping the scales in any remotely definitive sense

            This is the sentence that caused me to blow my stack. Because unless her victim had videotaped every sexual encounter, I don’t think there is any way for him to tip the scales; the circumstantial evidence and the direct evidence of her early testimony all scream that the rape didn’t happen.

            He’s not being merely reciting facts out of a duty to be ethical. He’s passing judgement on the quality of the evidence. And his judgement is so out of whack with what the evidence actually says that I am stunned and, frankly, appalled.

            1. I think the next big thing in the campus rape saga will be the allegation that is proven false because the male did video the sex act, and then he will be torn apart for videoing the sex act.

              Sort of like Amanda Marcotte getting pissy about the fact that no Congressmen want to ever be alone with their female aides any longer.

              1. The only good bind is the double bind.

              2. Well, that’s obviously because of patriarchy and wanting to keep women in their place, or something.

              3. Wow. Pretty much exactly what you would expect, but still jaw-dropping. Not just someone of the same stripe, but the exact same person who argues that we must always, unquestioningly accept what female victims of sexual crimes say.

                Nobody is so dumb as to miss the changes being made by male politicians as a direct consequence of these attitudes. This is good, old-fashioned mendacity.

              4. Marcotte, of all people, the head cheerleader of the Duke Lynch Mob, is bitching about congressmen taking reasonable precautions against false sexual harassment allegations?

                Of all the people who need to shut the fuck up to quit embarrassing themselves, she’s right behind Monica Lewinsky.

                -jcr

          3. Actually, this falls into the category of “Defamation per se”. He only needs to assert that she is making a false statement that he committed a crime, and then the burden shifts to her to prove that her statement is true.

            When she fails in that, he wins.

            I’d sue her for a a hundred million and see if that didn’t make her mattress go away.

        2. Nikki is responding to what tarran wrote about Robby. I don’t think Robby can be fair seen as putting Nungesser in the “maybe” camp. Certainly, just about every other publication can, but that’s basically the point of Robby’s article- it’s not fair to do so.

          1. This.

      3. Her story didn’t describe a rape… Her actions, texts, conversations, etc… did not hint at a rape having taken place…

        In other words there is absolutely zero evidence Nungesser did anything wrong other than dating a crazy person.

        1. Never stick it in crazy. Especially if they are on the wrong side of the crazy/hot line.

          1. At this point, even if they’re on the correct side of the line, it’s too risky.

    5. Are you trying to make twitter again? You get one little taste….

        1. That exchange makes me want to…cancel my subscription!

          1. Holy crap, that circle jerk with Weigel was embarrassing.

            1. That was an interesting thread and every poster should read it.

              You fucking guys suck. You are idiots who fail to appreciate the wisdom of Weigel and apparent Weigel wannabes Soave and ENB.

              This comment section, with all of it’s less than intellectual aspects, is a million times the voice of Liberty than the majority of the writers. Hopefully one day they can get hired at Huffpo.

          2. Yeah, watching Elizabeth Nolan Brown and Robby utterly miss the point was disappointing.

        2. Twitter: proudly turning journalism into even bigger circle jerk since 2007.

  13. No words can express my emotional trauma at the thought of this

    1. At least link to the pics Possibly NSFW.

    2. Did not click. The url was enough to make me retch, and give John a woody.

        1. Run Switzy run!

          1. MUH EYEZZZZZZ!!!!!!!!!

    3. Not gonna do it. Not. Gonna.

    4. Is this female Jabba the Hut supposed to be someone famous?

      1. Dude. Jabba is female.

        1. Do you mean the whole Princess Leia thing could have been easily reenacted by Rosie O’Donnell & Jessica Alba(I put her in there cuz she’s hot for a progtard)? *retches than looks again…

    5. If I were in a strip club and a land whale like that sauntered onto the stage, I would demand a refund of the cover charge.

      -jcr

  14. the HR person that hires her will be one without accountability, so academia or government.

    1. Columbia will probably hire her as a “Rape Survivor Counselor” or some such bullshit.

  15. She’s bravely reminding people that sometimes accusers lie and sometimes the accused are victims. Is that what she intended with her art?

  16. This means that we’ll no longer hear from or about her, right? RIGHT?

    1. Nah. She still got a Twitter war to get into, a book deal, and her murder trial in 15 years where she tries for a “fake rape panic defense.”

  17. The slut comment above is uncalled for, but she does appear to be a whore.

    (…a media whore, y’know?)

    1. You know who did seem whore-like? The chick who could afford law school but needed her birth control subsidized.

      1. Well she quickly transitioned into electoral politics, so that suspicion was borne out.

  18. I heard Nungesser also needed three helpers to carry a huge bag with a dollar sign stamped on the side when he walked across the stage.

    1. As cramer might say,”back up the truck”.

  19. [*Update: Salon revised its headline and now calls Sulkowicz an “alleged” rape survivor.]

    They’re learning.

    1. The comments in the salon article are the best
      its all people calling out salon for not mentioning he was acquitted and other SJWs replying “well, they did put alleged”

      1. Just so everyone knows, defaming someone (not informed enough about this situation to know if that’s the case here) and tossing in “alleged” does no good whatsoever.

        1. It’s very clearly the case here.

          There is no evidence other than the accuser’s word that a rape occurred. She has been caught in multiple lies, and her behavior is utterly inconsistent with her statements and sometimes her documented actions give lie to her statements. Her victim has not been caught in a single lie and his actions are consistent with his statements.

          So what do we call it when one person (we’ll call her Ann for the sake of argument) tells a story about someone else (let’s call him Bob) doing bad things, and some of the things Ann says are shown to be lies; none of what Bob says is ever shown to be a lie; and no aspects of Ann’s story that contradicts Bob’s story is ever shown to be true: either there is no evidence, or when there is evidence it backs Bob up? Let’s say – again for the sake of argument – that Ann is more believable than Sulkowicz in that Ann’s story doesn’t evolve dramatically over time.

          What would we call it?

          I believe the lawyers call it libel or slander.

          1. It’s certainly a possibility, depending on all of the facts. And there’s no public figure protection here, so he doesn’t have to prove actual malice.

        2. What about “rumor has it?” Specifically relating to ovine copulation?

  20. The next mattress will be cross-shaped.

  21. Her first real paycheck is obviously going to come from Sleepy’s or Sealy Posturepedic.

    1. Or Roche.

  22. If she actually sent those post rape text messages then at most he is guilty of having sex with someone who is mentally incompetent.

  23. She’s an attention whore.

  24. I clicked on this article because my head was about to explode from the Hillary article. Complacency = fall of the republic. We are all asking for the shit to hit the fan in a spectacular way by allowing these idiots to rule over us.

  25. Cultural myths. They don’t need to be true to be instructive. In this case, the myth tells a story that is supposed to educate us, or shame us, into agreeing with their opinion and probably their remedies. Too bad this myth is tied to her story instead of something that is more credible or that can’t be fact checked because rape is bad and reminding us to be intolerant of it is a good thing.

    Instead, this reminds us that the accusers are the attackers and that they, and those who need to believe this myth, will continue to attack regardless of any inconvienent facts or possible innocence. The story needs a villian and maybe even a class of villians, e.g. certian kinds of men whose membership in the villian class is based on whatever the accusers want it to be. That’s the power play here, take the power to define who is a hero and who is a villian and then use it for control. This idea has been around for a long time, a favorite tool of politicians, kings, and priests and we still keep on falling for it. Evolution is not a sure thing…

  26. Art? Healing? Demand for justice? Or just a primadonna’s bully pr exercise/spectacle intellectually devoid of any real understanding of sexual violence, of what real rape victims go through and the hauling of individuals through the muckrake of public ridicule when no court of law has ever found said alleged rapist guilty?.

    http://scallywagandvagabond.co…..er-rapist/

  27. Sweet Jesus, the administrators are gutless pussies who are complicit in lynching a person who hasn’t been found guilty of a damn thing. Here’s hoping Nungesser ends up a rich man.

  28. If the lie sounds good and it reinforces the story you have in your mind, the one you tell yourself and that makes you feel deliciously indignant, go for it, believe!

  29. Art is making something out of nothing and selling it, right? a twat, but a brillant twat in a perverse upsidedown world

    1. If art means destroying an innocent’s (probably) life, then she’s fucking Michelangelo. Short of murdering the guy, there’s nothing worse she could do to him.

      1. this is the world we have now. there is no fixing it, only getting out of its way as it kills itself. they’ll miss western civilization…

  30. “anyone suggesting we should uncritically applaud Sulkowicz is either unscrupulous, or deeply misinformed”

    And that includes every “rape culture” propagandist, who are among those who have perpetuated a profoundly misandrist climate on America’s campuses.

    Emma Sulkowicz is a vengeful sexual predator – precisely what Title IX and Columbia’s policies were meant to protect students from.

    For the complete story of the now infamous Rolling Stone article on the alleged U-VA gang rape, its fallout, the media firestorm of criticism, the apology, the final police investigation report, and the demagoguery of those radical feminists who refuse to apologize for propagating the myth of “rape culture” and the meme of “victim culture”, see: Yellow Journalism and the Meme of “Rape Culture” – Rolling Stone and U-VA Gang Rape

  31. Sulkowicz will spend the rest of her life as the poster girl for “don’t stick your dick in crazy”.

    -jcr

  32. My God Columbia really wants to get nailed don’t they? They issue this guidance and still let her walk around with the mattress. Amended complaint coming up. That shows obvious preference for her and her nonsense since everyone else apparently complied with the ‘no large objects’ mandate.

    They had every right to tell her to leave the mattress at home and barring her entry to the ceremony if she insisted on bringing it.

    I only wish Nungesser had walked up on stage with a sandwich board with her ‘fuck me in the butt’ message enlarged and pasted on there. At Columbia shaming students is OK apparently so why not?

  33. I keep trying to think of something that Nungesser could have been carrying around in answer to the mattress but all I keep coming up with is one of those ass castings with a fully functional sphincter.

  34. I dunno, when I hear that a college girl is carrying a mattress everywhere she goes, it suggests to me “slut” not “moral crusader”.

  35. She can probably depend more on that mattress to earn a living than a degree from Columbia.

  36. The very case which led to the dishonesty study reporting the infamous 1 in 5 number, and promoted by NPR was itself yet another case of a false accusation. The case of Laura Dunn, forgotten because so few are willing to tell the narrative.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMR5GyuZF0o

    This is all reminiscent of the hysteria’s of the past, the Salem Witch Trials were based on women pointing the fingers at others, and whipped into a fervor, others joined in.

    We’ve had years of the groundwork being laid, with such flawed studies and a whole infrastructure of professional feminists pushing the narrative. So it doesn’t seem to matter how many prominent cases have proven to be false. We’ve had the Rolling Stone UVA case, Duke Lacrosse, Jamie Leigh Jones of KBR contractor fame, and the example for rape in the military all turn out to be false. Even famous women who wouldn’t seem to have any reason to do this, like Lena Dunham have been caught fabricating such lies in an attempt to gain sympathy or more notoriety, Dunham had to sell a book, and her show was tanking, so she tells a lie….

    Even Sarah Silverman, can’t help but make up an anecdote to personalize her gender wage gap grievance. She had to bolster her feminist bonifides, prove the “personal as political”.

    But as Salem taught us, people are prone to such panics But one would have hoped that the “best and the brightest” would have been more resistant ….instead what we know is they are in large part responsible.

    1. But as Salem taught us, people are prone to such panics

      More like, “women are prone to such panics”.

    2. And like in Salem, these bitches need to burn! After all, we still burn bitches at the stake, don’t we?

  37. Looked like four women dragging a mattress around. Did he rape all four of them? Or did one just make an accusation and the other three are “piling on” as women are wont to do?

    Half of all rape complaints are false. I hope Nungesser takes the university for a billion dollars, forcing it into bankruptcy and requiring it to close its doors forever.

    This isn’t the first time Columbia has played the stooge. When Michael A. Bellesiles published his book “Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture”, Columbia “oohed” and “ached” and bestowed upon Bellesiles the Bancroft prize for excellence in a book about history, despite widespread claims that the book was a fraud. Later, it was PROVEN to be a fraud, Bellesiles was disgraced and Columbia had to go chase down the Bancroft prize and repossess it.

    One would think Columbia would be a bit more reticent about jumping into the cesspool – but apparently not.

  38. My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998!

    ……………… w??w??w.T?i?m?e?s-R??e?p?o?r??t.c?o??m

  39. Emma Sulkowicz as a feminist is someone the Obama Administration cannot say No to. It will continue to push reforms that further erode due process rights on campus. This, sad to say, may one day produce a campus massacre by a young man who was wrongly accused and ruined and who now has nothing to lose.

    I sincerely believe it all could have been so very different — so much better — between men and women. Maybe there’s still hope. See:

    “The Sexual Harassment Quagmire: How To Dig Out” http://malemattersusa.wordpres…..-quagmire/

    This may be the most exhaustive analysis you can find of what I think is the sexes’ most alienating and destructive behavioral difference, which I believe is responsible for much of what is called sexual assault of women.

  40. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.netcash9.com

  41. “Emma: now that you’ve graduated, how does it feel to be the reason people don’t believe some actual rape victims?”

  42. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.gowork247.com

  43. This woman deserves to run afoul of some brutal serial murderer. The kind that keeps her for while and tells her to ‘put the lotion on it’s skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it is told to.’

  44. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.gowork247.com

  45. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.