Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

As Another Accusation Bites the Dust, Columbia Rape Saga Takes New Turn

The accused now takes his case to the civil courts

YouTube screen captureYouTube screen captureThis week's graduation at Columbia University caps the bizarre, often sordid saga involving the two most famous members of the Class of 2015: Emma Sulkowicz, the activist who protested the school's alleged mishandling of her alleged rape by carrying a mattress around campus, and Jean-Paul Nungesser, the German scholarship student she accuses of raping her. On Tuesday, Sulkowicz carried her mattress across the stage at Class Day, despite half-hearted attempts by Columbia officials to enforce a regulation against bringing "large objects" into the ceremonial area—and despite the fact that the "mattress performance" was for a senior visual arts thesis she had already completed. Her activism was also lauded (with no mention of her name) by two commencement speakers, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power.

This isn't quite the end of the story: Nungesser is suing Columbia, university president Lee Bollinger, and Sulkowicz's thesis supervisor for allowing him to be subjected to "gender-based harassment" which severely damaged his educational experience and future prospects, even though a campus panel found him not culpable on the sexual assault charge. Meanwhile, there is new information related to one of this story's many strange twists: another sexual assault complaint brought against Nungesser late last year by a male classmate. The charge was made public in February, on the heels of my article in The Daily Beast questioning the pro-Sulkowicz narrative.

Now, I have learned that after a hearing in late April, Nungesser was found "not responsible" in this latest case—altogether, the fourth time he has been cleared of a sexual assault charge at Columbia. When Sulkowicz first went public a year ago, the fact that her alleged attacker was still on campus and had never been subjected to any formal sanctions despite being accused of sexual assault by three different women helped fuel the outrage. Yet the latest investigation strongly supports Nungesser's claim, made in media interviews and in his lawsuit, that the multiple complaints were not independent of each other and may have been part of a vendetta stemming from the original charge by Sulkowicz. 

Several days after my Daily Beast piece, which featured not only Nungesser's account of his relationship with Sulkowicz but social media messages tending to support his version, the feminist blog Jezebel ran a purported rebuttal titled "How to Make an Accused Rapist Look Good." Much of the story, by Jezebel editor Erin Gloria Ryan, dealt with Sulkowicz's not entirely convincing explanation of her friendly messages to Nungesser days after what she says was a terrifyingly violent rape. But the piece also contained a new revelation meant to bolster the claim that Nungesser was a serial sexual predator: the existence of a hitherto unknown male victim, identified by the pseudonym "Adam."

Adam, who also graduates this week, told Jezebel that "he was close friends with Paul during his freshman year in 2011" and that "one fall night, in the midst of an emotional conversation in Paul's dorm room...Paul pushed him onto his bed and sexually assaulted him." He claimed that after much self-doubt and internal struggle, he finally reported this incident, first to a student society to which both he and Nungesser belonged and then in a formal complaint to the university in the fall of 2014. Adam rather melodramatically lamented that my Daily Beast piece "invalidates and completely erases [his] experience." It should be noted that, as accuser and accused in a sexual misconduct case, both Adam and Nungesser had presumably received the usual instructions from the university to "make all reasonable efforts to maintain the confidentiality/privacy of the involved parties."

About three weeks prior to graduation, the hearing panel made its decision. It found for Nungesser. As is now the norm in campus sexual misconduct proceedings, the charge was considered under the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. Thus, Adam could not meet the very complainant-friendly burden of showing that it was even slightly more likely than not that the offense was committed. Since there was no appeal, the case is over, and as far as Nungesser's formal record at Columbia is concerned he is entirely in the clear.

Nungesser declined to be interviewed for this story, due to concerns that statements to the media might affect his lawsuit. However, through a source close to the case, I was able to review several documents related to Adam's complaint—including, crucially, the report prepared by a two-person Title IX investigative team.

The gist of the complaint was that in November 2011, Adam, who lived in the same dorm as Nungesser and was part of the same social circle, went to Nungesser's room to tell him he was upset about being "caught in the middle" of relationship drama between Nungesser and his then-girlfriend. (This girlfriend later became one of Nungesser's accusers, known in several media accounts under the pseudonym "Natalie"; she claimed that Nungesser had psychologically and sexually abused her throughout their relationship. The case was eventually closed after she stopped cooperating.)

According to Adam, during this conversation Nungesser asked him to sit on the bed, rubbed his shoulder and back, then "gently" pushed him down and proceeded to stroke his leg and finally massage his crotch "for approximately 2-3 minutes" while Adam froze in shock. He was finally able to muster the will to get up and leave.

Adam told investigators that he spoke to Nungesser's girlfriend about this; however, he didn't seem to remember when, or what her reaction was. At one point, he said that he "assumed" he had told her immediately afterward, and "it wasn't until months later that I realized that I had not and she was unaware." He also claimed that he avoided Nungesser after the alleged assault, and that Nungesser eventually texted him and then messaged him on Facebook; according to him, Nungesser was upset with him for telling Natalie about their sexual contact, but also suggested that they get together for coffee.

Nungesser's story was quite different. He said that he confided in Adam about his and Natalie's relationship troubles, that there was no sexual contact of any kind, and that later on he was dismayed to learn that Adam had recounted their conversation to Natalie.

The Facebook exchange, which Adam himself eventually found and turned over to the investigators, did not exactly help his story. Far from showing avoidance of Nungesser, it showed Adam seeking him out, complaining that "our friendship has been negatively affected" by Nungesser's relationship problems and that "we're less close/you're preferring it that way." It also showed Nungesser saying, "It was obviously pretty hard for me when I found out that you shared my entire conversation that I had with you with [Natalie], because I had assumed that it was confidential."

The investigators' report noted numerous contradictions in Adam's account, as well as its drastic discrepancy with the Facebook record. Nungesser's account, on the other hand, was not only consistent but matched by corroborative evidence. Adam's credibility was further sunk by his rather fanciful complaints of "retaliation" by Nungesser in a class they shared. These "deliberately aggressive acts" consisted of sitting too close to Adam or to his friends, which left Adam "distraught and traumatized," and complimenting some points Adam had made in a class discussion (which "felt like he was claiming a collective sense of power"). I am happy to report that, even on the trauma-happy modern campus, such claims of harassment are still recognized as, in the words of the report, "hyperbolic and illogical."

In the end, the investigators concluded that Adam was "unreliable" and that his story simply did not add up, and recommended that Nungesser be found "not responsible." But there is another fascinating wrinkle to the story.

Adam did have a corroborating witness of sorts: a woman who had held a governing position in a fraternity to which both he and Nungesser had belonged—Alpha Delta Phi, a coed Greek organization with an intellectual and literary bent. This woman confirmed that during the 2012/2013 academic year, she heard a rumor that Nungesser had "engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior" toward Adam; she said she had questioned Adam about it and written a report based on his verbal statement. The report, an undated Word document she had saved on her computer, added more inconsistencies to Adam's  account; among other things, it placed the alleged misconduct in February 2012 rather than November 2011.

The record leaves virtually no doubt that this witness is the same ADP officer—I'll call her Leila—who played a fairly important supporting role in the case against Nungesser in the spring and fall of 2013. As I reported in The Daily Beast, after learning about the complaint brought by Sulkowicz in late April of that year, Leila sent out an email on the ADP listserv announcing that a male society member and house resident stood accused of raping a female member. In rather florid language, the email declared that the accused had "flagrantly violated his vows, disregarded his obligations as a Member, and...transgressed the rules of life," and that if he did not resign from ADP voluntarily the executive board would seek his immediate expulsion.

The next day, after Nungesser informed Leila that the university had assured him he could stay at the house while the case was pending, she sent a sheepish follow-up email noting that "all members deserve due process, as well as an opportunity to tell their side." Shortly after that, however, Nungesser found himself facing another accusation—this time from an ADP resident, identified as "Josie" in several media reports, who claimed he had grabbed her and tried to kiss her at a party over a year earlier. As a result, he was ordered to move out of ADP.  

According to both Nungesser and a student advocate who attended the hearing on Josie's complaint, Leila testified at that hearing and acknowledged that she encouraged Josie to come forward. The record in Adam's case provides additional confirmation that she was actively collecting allegations against Nungesser. Interestingly, while the investigators' report stated that Adam didn't have an apparent motive to falsely accuse Nungesser, it took note of the fact that "at the time of the Complainant's initial disclosure, at least several of his close friends and co-fraternity members were engaged in a process intended to evict the Respondent from the fraternity house." For a university document, this comes startlingly close to an admission that Nungesser may have been the target of a group vendetta.

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.

  • pxfragonard||

    There is only one way a story can "erase... experience." That is if the experience is a story.

  • Hey Nikki!||

    Oh, so delicious. Yeah, it's totally unbelievable that a bunch of friends in college would gang up on someone's mean ex-boyfriend and try to destroy his life.

  • GILMORE||

    Its junior-high-level relationship-spite being elevated to criminal conduct.

    Basically = immature idiots wielding the enforcement powers of an institution against one another... because *they can*. Because why not.

    The fact that there are ostensibly more-mature people inside these institutions, who do NOT intervene and say, "Kids? Cut it the fuck out. You're really starting to get on everyone's nerves".... that's probably the real problem.

    Because otherwise this whole "let's backtrack a bunch facebook posts and try to reconstruct reality"-process would be a joke.

  • Muzzle of Bees||

    Basically, what Cathy is doing is defending the legal burden of proof and benefit of assumption by asserting the reasonableness (drink) that Nungesser might be innocent and that the other parties might be entertaining fabrications because of a combination of embarrassment and social activist groupthink. There are people who actually think that the presumption of innocence degrades the judicial process and since those people are clearly incapable of abstract thinking we need examples like Cathy's to maybe (I stress *maybe*) demonstrate that it could maybe possibly injure an innocent person. Whether or not Nungesser is actually innocent is beside the point.

  • GILMORE||

    I appreciate that.

    What i think is ridiculous is that these he-said-she-said hissyfits are, due to Title IX, elevated to the level of Criminal Complaints and require whole fucking departments of administrators and counselors and advocates to parse the post-facto whining of kids who should otherwise be thrown to the curb and told to solve their own goddamn relationship problems.

    Basically, if a crime happened? Tell it to the cops. Colleges should stay the fuck out of this kind of mess. Repeal Title IX.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Kinda funny in a perverse way. These nannies infantilize college students, raise the drinking age, won't let scary guns on campus, and generally treat them like junior high kids, and then seem completely unprepared for students who act like junior high kids, and build up all sorts of legal frappery to sort it out, raising the nanny bar in a nasty vicious circle. Pretty soon it will extend past college and into the first five years of work.

  • Overt||

    I have said it before but the end game of this cycle is forbidding sex between students all together.

    When my kids kick and scream about sharing a toy, I first try to lay some ground rules about sharing. If they are still unable to play nice, that toy goes away. Same happens when they start rough housing. When it starts, I say "If you are going to do this, no crying." When the crying starts, they get sent to separate rooms.

    All these special snow flakes trying to explore adulthood need to understand that you don't get to act like an adult with the protection we offer children. If you can't accept responsibilities of an adult, you will be treated like children.

  • Haskell_Hunter||

    Title IX protects and advances the liberal agenda by design.

    Due process works, but liberals had to reinvent it for their own guise.

  • texasace00||

    You are an idiot. Tell that to a black man accused of a crime, just look at the hundreds of cases being overturned recently through DNA evidence. the GOP makes and sponsors laws across the country to the tune of 4 to 1, starting with a recent law in Indiana where God has the right to protect a Christian Pizza.."Feed the man a Stromboli and he eats for a day. Teach the man who to stuff a Calzone and he eats for a lifetime" Oh, another conservative homophobic hate monger just got outed, must be the newest liberal guise. Did I mention you are an idiot?

  • Motrin_Peddler||

    Begone, faggot.

  • Haskell_Hunter||

    Title IX protects and advances the liberal agenda by design.

    Due process works, but liberals had to reinvent it for their own guise.

  • Harold Falcon||

    It will probably extend into early work years, at least until these children are 26. But it's not going to be a problem at colleges anymore as they will disintegrate as more and more learning is done online.

  • ||

    This post is as ridiculous as Cathy's antics & degrades actual rape when it does occur.

  • Muzzle of Bees||

    Asserting the importance of "innocent until proven guilty" is ridiculous and "degrades actual rape". Rock solid logic. Got it.

  • texasace00||

    First of all, keep it simple. We are not impressed by flowery rhetoric. Besides the point? Really? It is the point. This story is about a bitter, troubled woman who fabricated a story of rape, compelled her friends to collude, then smeared an innocent man who did everything right to clear his name. People have been victimized by gossip and innuendo as long as society has existed, and better yet, this woman has become a social media star which plays into her hands, a scorned, troubled woman seeking attention. Many times things like this take on a life of their own and as you get in deeper and deeper, the lies become more and more complicated, which obviously what happened here. This man was the victim, pure and simple, that IS the point, or should I write with more of a rhetorical flair deigned to pretend to others how intelligent I am? Then, miss the thesis statement entirely? Writing 101 muzzle, writing 101

  • Muzzle of Bees||

    Shorter texasace: English words = "rhetorical flair"

    Well daggum, tex, here I meant to make a point about the social utility (uhh...usefulnessity) of that thar idea of "innocent until proven guilty" and I done mucked it up with my highfalutin' verbiage...goddammit! I dun it ag'in!!1! I guess I really was just trying to signal my intelligence and not, as I thought I was doing, present my thoughts as a starting point for discussion. I guess I forgot who my audience was here! I mean, everyone on H&R is a cotton-headed ninnymuggins and I guess no one else uses "flowery rhetoric" to precisely communicate nuanced ideas. What are we, nerds or sumthin?!
    /sarc

    Shorter Muzzle: The importance of Cathy et al's revelations of the paucity (you like that?) of evidence to support the claims of Sulkowicz and the others extends beyond its singular effect on Nungesser. Perhaps "beside the point" wasn't the best way to say that, I merely expressing that there is greater importance vis a vis (feels so good) our cultural perspective on the benefit of assumption (a basic legal term).

    Get wrecked tex.

  • BDub||

    "Because why not."

    Because, no repercussions.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Me-ow.

  • John Galt||

    That's some tasty sarcasm.

  • Libertarian Joe||

    Man this story just keeps getting crazier
    I think the line from Jezebel "Together, we [came] to a better understanding of our shared trauma" basically confirms this article's theory
    the two girls colluded and then the other two jumped in to help out for the greater good

    i believe Paul is the real victim here. I mean for christ sake he has been cleared 4 times on 4 different charges in a university "court" that literally only requires that there was a 50.000000001% chance that it happened at all...... and yet hes still been cleared

  • tarran||

    Man this story just keeps getting crazier

    The thing is that people like Sulkowicz don't just suddenly go off and do this sort of thing as a one-off false allegation.

    They do this in *every* area of their life. They do it because it's a successful strategy for getting them what they want, *and* they have to date not faced serious repercussions for this sort of behavior.

    They tell big lies and little lies. They go after people who are major figures in their social circle, or total strangers who make the mistake to politely respond to a conversational sally and find themselves snared in a sticky web of false allegations.

    And the vast majority of humans, who never would even think of leveling false allegations against *anyone* cannot believe that these people are lying, and bend over backwards to make excuses for them.

    I expect that anyone scrutinizing any aspect of Sulkowicz's life will find instances of her making up shit about other people with a wanton disregard for the consequences to them. And it will be like a fractal; no matter how tiny the bit being scrutinized - a year long affair, a two week group project, whatever - there will be lies and smears to bend people to do what she wants them to do.

  • BP11||

    Agree completely. This is a very disturbed woman who has been enabled at every turn. This wasn't the first time she's done something like this and it won't be the last.

  • Mx Trshmnster of the Dumpster||

    I was watching dateline with my wife a while back, and there was this woman who had a super hard life in mexico, moved to the us to go to school, and was horrifically raped by some guy she met at a college bar, and her rapist was found dead a few weeks later. Dateline was painting her as a smart woman who had been victimized multiple times by this rapist guy and her boyfriend at the time (who she said killed the rapist in a rage).

    Anyway, the first clip of her on the show, she talked about how "unsafe" she felt. I turned to my wife and told her that this girl probably wasn't raped, and she was the one who orchestrated the whole killing.

    Whaddya know, there was no evidence of a rape, and she's sitting in prison for killing the guy.

    These "black widow" types do exist, and they are very good at manipulating people. The naive and the idiots of the world fall hook, line, and sinker for these goons.

  • MikeK||

    Yes and she will continue until something bad happens to her. I wonder if she can find a job ? Probably as some sort of diversity bureaucrat but that may come to an end if colleges start to come to their senses. This stuff is just too expensive and useless in any meaningful way. Only a rich and bored society could come up with this nonsense. When they do, they sometimes become less rich and even less bored.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    i believe Paul is the real victim here

    That's a bold, original conclusion.

  • Libertarian Joe||

    Thanks!

  • TxJack 112||

    Gee in every arena in the US, people are protected from vindictive prosecution by double jeopardy rules except the world of academia. The young man has been cleared FOUR times of the charge and yet this woman continues a public campaign accusing him of rape? I hope he follows through and takes it to civil court and financially wipes her out. The entire rape mentality culture on college campuses now gives me serious reservations about sending my son to any college. The notion that a young man can be accused and convicted of a "crime" without any involvement of law enforcement because there is no actual evidence if appalling. It is clear there is a movement in this country being pushed by the left to "empower" women at the expense of men. These women have no problem destroying the lives of any man for simply being part of a group they view as the source of everything wrong in the world today. When justice is no longer blind, then it is not longer justice.

  • ||

    The young man has been cleared FOUR times of the charge and yet this woman continues a public campaign accusing him of rape?

    They were four separate charges of assault/rape on four different people.

    IANAL but even in real-world courts, double-jeopardy doesn't necessarily apply.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    In real-world courts the State frequently puts a defendant in double jeopardy by means of the FYTW clause.

  • SimonJester||

    I'll be honest m.c, I'm not sure what the acronymn "IANAL" stands for, but it seems suspiciously like something Apple might come out with.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    It's like the acronym "DTF." It literally means I ANAL. It's not really relevant in this context, but some people just like to make sure that it is out there, just in case.

  • RBS||

    Bo Cara, Esq IANAL

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Careful now, Bo would accuse us of being appearing insensitive.

  • Slammer||

    I haven't seen from him or John for a while now. COINCIDENCE?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Are you suggesting that John is a transpolitical?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Instead of "transpolitical", which is a clumsy word, I instead submit "cross-poster".

  • Mx. F. Stupidity, Jr.||

    +1 fucking half wit

  • ||

    He's having ECT.

  • Lesdouche||

    Triggered.

  • 68Whiskey||

    Fuck me in the butt.

  • SimonJester||

    I'll be honest m.c, I'm not sure what the acronymn "IANAL" stands for, but it seems suspiciously like something Apple might come out with.

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    "I Am Not A Lawyer"

    Well, I am but you know what I mean.

  • ||

    No, I don't, that's why I have to say 'IANAL'. :)

  • JW||

    Is that anything like "fuck me in the butt"?

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    No. Lawyers fuck YOU in the butt.

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    precisely.

  • Madisonian||

    I was sure it was an admission to being an anal personality.

  • This Machine||

    Wait, were you a JAG?

    *hisses, raises sign of cross*

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    SS was a JAG? Like with his own F-14 and everything?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Is the full list of JAG duties to pick up the phone, answer in a bored voice, and hang up?

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    Certainly not! *counterhisses*

    I was enlisted Infantry (11B at that) and OD and LG as an officer. I was a BDE TF XO and S-5 in AF, and an adviser to the IA 14th DIV then a little bit of everything in Baghdad.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I was OPP in the LBC.

  • This Machine||

    I was enlisted Infantry (11B at that) and OD and LG as an officer. I was a BDE TF XO and S-5 in AF, and an adviser to the IA 14th DIV then a little bit of everything in Baghdad.

    *lowers hackles*

    Infantry? Enlisted swine?? All the better. You ain't so bad after all, Swizzle Stick!

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    I was enlisted navy. There's a guy here who was army officer. He calls everyone Sir. After a couple of times, I reacted naturally with "I know who my parents are I work for a living It didn't take an act of Congress to make me honest" and he just smiled and made a point of calling me Sir. I tried calling hm a jarhead but that's an insult to Marines and just made him laugh.

    Then I called him flyboy and now he doesn't call me Sir any more. Ha!

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    Were I SecDef - you wanted a commission, do some enlisted time first.

    "Who would rule, must first serve".

  • John DeWitt||

    If you're "ruling" as an officer, you're doing it wrong.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    (or, as Sulkowicz put it to Jezebel, "Together, we [came] to a better understanding of our shared trauma")

    This should have been a red flag that Sulkowicz's story was not quite accurate. She alleged things that would not need to be discussed to be considered "traumatic."

  • AlexInCT||

    WTF? Why do you think reality should be able to intrude on the narrative, huh?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Not getting their own way is considered traumatic these days. Parent's insurance until they're 26, walls of trophies for just showing up, their parents have to fill out financial information even though the "kids" are past the age of majority... these kids have at no point experienced a consequence in their swaddled little lives.

    An unrequited crush spurring her on to even greater and bolder crazy is symptomatic. At what point in her life has she ever learned to deal with being told no?

  • AlgerHiss||

    No serious business in their right mind should ever hire anyone from Columbia or any other of these alleged bastions of knowledge.

  • tarran||

    Careful folks!

    I am assured that the fact that the only evidence against Nunguesser is the testimony of people who have been shown to be lying and the fact he has never been caught in a lie and he swears up and down he hasn't done any of these things in no way "definitely tips the scales" on his behalf.

    It's possible that Nunguesser is just a really skilled liar and good at picking victims whose credibility problems mean no one would believe them.

  • Hey Nikki!||

    Yes, that is indeed possible.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Night Court. Now how come you never see reruns of that show anywhere? They've got to be better than half of what is in repeats on tv these days. I don't think they're on any of the nostalgia channels either.

    John Larroquette, as he showed in the movie Stripes, was great at playing an obnoxious hateable authority figure.

  • WTF||

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    *sighs wistfully for vanished youth*

    Yeah, she was the best.

  • ||

    Paging Rico Suave?

  • ||

    Were I a Svengali, Columbia would seem to be the place to ply my trade.

  • MSimon||

    The only way a man should go to college is as an outside agitator.

  • MSimon||

    Don't cheap hookers carry their mattresses with them where ever they go?

  • Xeones||

    You'd think they would charge a premium for the convenience.

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    How good is the mattress?

  • C. Anacreon||

    It's a Sleep Number special, voted best mattress for couples.

  • Ranter||

    "...even on the trauma-happy modern campus, such claims of harassment are still recognized as, in the words of the report, "hyperbolic and illogical.""

    But for HOW LONG?

    Anyone with a brain and a set of guts to go with it would've stood up and booed this loony shitstain when she started lugging her stupid fucking mattress across the stage.

    Her parents, teachers, administrators - just about any responsible adult in her life right now is a miserable fucking failure.

    I *almost* called her a much worse word. But it has a given sexual connotation. I think 'shitstain' is pretty appropriate for someone who's spinning hyped up, overblown 'sexual trauma survivor' paranoia into fame. I hope, as with the fake, crazy Virginia Campus Rape' story, these people are legally and financially devastated.

  • SimonJester||

    cumquat?

  • Billy Boogers||

    Twunt??

  • Ranter||

    Lewinsky-esque?

    Dammit, now I forget.

  • The Blind Gawd Luvia||

    Marcotte?

  • Dietz||

    I can think of no better epitaph for this whole sordid affair than to reduce her name to a verb, like Robert Bork was after his Supreme Court nomination.
    Concerned friend, "What happened? You had a school disciplinary review today?"
    Victim, "I was Sulkowiczed."

  • Sevo||

    "Together, we [came] to a better understanding of our shared trauma"

    Would that be the trauma of 'gee, I wish I hadn't had sex with that guy'?

  • Sevo||

    Or some of you may remember similar events as a 'coyote morning'.

  • ||

    Whoa! Whoa! Whoa. That's a bridge too far Sevo.

    You insinuating that she, as a woman, would have to chew her arm off to evade the man she slept with rather explicitly calls her a bitch and implies she is both physically weak and morally little better than a dog.

    You need to consider how the precise definitions of the words you're using don't fit this situation and how your drifting definition might affect peoples' moral sensibilities with regards to women and sex.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Not that you're bitter, or anything.

  • perlhaqr||

    'badger morning'. Better? :D

  • Jimbo||

    Sevo just triggered repressed memories of college. I demand he be banned from the comments section immediately!

  • Hey Nikki!||

    Be soothed, oh commentariat. A street artist is on the case.

  • ||

    Winning.

  • Deli-bro||

    Absolutely glorious

  • RBS||

  • JW||

    I wonder how long before Flikr finds their grovelling cowardice and takes sit down?

  • PapayaSF||

    Ha!

  • Pepperjack||

    They saved the best for last.

  • grrizzly||

    Pretty Little Liar?

    I think Sluttly Little Liar would be a better description. Emma Sulkowicz is a slut but she's that pretty. Sulkowicz and her ilk don't care about telling the truth but they surely hate to be regarded as sluts. Hit them where it hurts.

  • grrizzly||

    she's not that pretty

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    They don't teach you about bras at Columbia, apparently.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    She's a solid 5.

    You can move 2 points in either direction. Meaning that if she took care of her appearance, she could project a 7 to a drunk dude.

    Instead, she's walking around like a 3 with the crazy and the blue hair.

  • Sevo||

    No, she isn't. She's 1:AM pretty. Maybe 12:30AM.

  • Hey Nikki!||

    How do you seem to know so much more about her sexual history than any news articles I've read?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    He just likes that word

  • ||

    Slut slut slut. Slut slut slut slut? Slut slut! Slut, slut slut, slutslutslut! Slut slut slut slut slut slut slut slut slut.

  • RBS||

    /goes to Xhamster...

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Whore whore?

  • ||

    Come on, Nicole. Can't you see she's a slut? By the way, what does that mean, exactly?

  • RBS||

    Yesterday slut was redefined to mean someone who makes a big deal out of sex and talks about it or something.

  • Hey Nikki!||

    I think it's when you have sex and lie about it afterward?

    Because that's totally not something chicks would do if they thought they would be slut-shamed for fucking, or anything.

  • MarkLastname||

    Maybe he meant it as a compliment? "Slutty little liar," like I would say "God I hate that big muscular serial killer."

  • ||

    How do you seem to know so much more about her sexual history than any news articles I've read?

    Unless sex is somehow intrinsically bad and/or she's had lots of it, what does it matter?

    The slut performed sexually relevant acts that I morally disapprove of.

    The fact that she deplores the label is icing on the cake.

  • Hey Nikki!||

    First of all, give me a fucking break. The whole point is that everyone knows "slut" has negative connotations, or it wouldn't be "effective" for this purpose. You don't get to purposely insult someone and then claim it wasn't actually an insult. That's retarded.

    Second, does it seriously not dawn on anyone that some women might make false rape accusations because of slut-shaming?

  • ||

    Second, does it seriously not dawn on anyone that some women might make false rape accusations because of slut-shaming?

    So, the libertarian answer is to support the silence of any/all manner of slut-shaming to protect these not-so-innocent but otherwise ready, rough-and-tumble prodigies of tomorrow?

    If you can't stand the slutty insults (or compliments), stay out of the fucking bed... and certainly don't carry it around on your goddamned back.

  • Hey Nikki!||

    I wasn't aware I was giving a libertarian answer to anything. But I think it's perfectly libertarian for me to say, "Baselessly insulting people makes you a dick." And I also think it's perfectly libertarian for me to ask, "Why are you insulting her about something other than the thing she actually did wrong?"

    But it's good to know that, you know, there are assholes here who apparently think slut-shaming is a positive thing generally speaking. If you can't stand the pushback, stay out of the misogyny.

  • ||

    Why are you insulting her about something other than the thing she actually did wrong?

    Forgive me my insensitive misogynistic interpretation, I was under the impression that she regretted the sex.

    So, in the magical mythical world where we can say the sex is irrelevant, if you could discourage/prevent her from "being raped" or lying about it, you choose the latter?

  • Hey Nikki!||

    So, in the magical mythical world where we can say the sex is irrelevant, if you could discourage/prevent her from "being raped" or lying about it, you choose the latter?

    Um...since I don't think she was raped, yes, I would prefer she didn't lie about it. I couldn't care less about her sex life as such.

    You have no idea whether she regretted the sex.

  • ||

    So, the libertarian answer is to support the silence of any/all manner of slut-shaming to protect these not-so-innocent but otherwise ready, rough-and-tumble prodigies of tomorrow?

    Nicole saying that being an utter cock is counter-productive without even implying force to prevent cock-like behavior is "silencing"? You must be rather thin-skinned.

  • tarran||

    Whilst reading this whole exchange between grizzly and everyone else, I found myself thinking, "with allies like this, who needs enemies?"

  • ||

    Is this hate speech? Someone get Chris Cuomo on the horn.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Yeah, but then we realized it was you talking, Tarran, and anything less than slitting her throat and burning her corpse whilst dancing naked around the flames would just be half-assed pussyfooting around the subject to you.

  • tarran||

    You mistake me Mr Hamster,

    I don't want anything to happen to Sulkowicz. I merely suggest people stop pretending that any assertion she makes should be given any weight whatsoever unless it is confirmed by independent sources that aren't her.

    I think the people wanting to smear her as a slut are being idiots. Nikki is right. Her sexual appetites have absolutely no bearing on what happened here, and focusing on them distracts people from the actual malicious acts she engaged in.

    In this sad age, too many people focus on principals and not principles.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    This all could have been avoided if Grizzly had just called her a cunt.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    On the other hand, I'm making "slut-slut" a thing, so the situation is not wholly without benefit.

  • grrizzly||

    I've haven't faced so much pushback since my defense of Roman Polanski six years ago.

  • lap83||

    Can I just say I don't understand my gender's obsession with being called certain names. Maybe someone else can explain it to me why I should give a shit.

  • KB Check Release||

    "If you can't stand the slutty insults (or compliments), stay out of the fucking bed... and certainly don't carry it around on your goddamned back."

    ^^^This

  • lap83||

    "Second, does it seriously not dawn on anyone that some women might make false rape accusations because of slut-shaming?"

    Bullshit. The prospect of being called a mean word is not an excuse for lying to get someone in legal trouble. That probably never dawned on anyone because it's indefensible.

  • Hey Nikki!||

    Did I say it was defensible? No. But it's a bad incentive.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    "Oh, what does it matter that he didn't rape-rape me? I feel bad, and saying it was rape makes me feel better, which makes it rape."

    Everyone who understands irony, gets a cookie.

  • grrizzly||

    For the record, I don't disapprove of anal sex. On the contrary. As a gay man, when I was single, I most certainly slept with more guys than Sulkowicz. I couldn't care less if anyone called me a slut. But if you cannot handle casual sex with various men, then don't do it. Save yourself for marriage, or something.

  • Hey Nikki!||

    So her problem was not being slutty enough?

  • grrizzly||

    Exactly. Slutty enough to consider herself deep down a slut (that's how the accusation happened), but not slutty enough to bang more dudes to get it over with.

  • KDN||

    Isn't that always the problem?

  • Hey Nikki!||

    Isn't that always the problem?

    We have literally no reason to believe she accused Nungesser of rape because she felt ashamed. She could just as easily have done it out of anger.

  • KDN||

    Mine wasn't a serious comment; I should have quoted the "So her problem was not being slutty enough?". I have sympathy for the dude getting railroaded, but overall this fiasco just bores me.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    After reading that, your position is still ironic. Oh look, a man who sleeps around wouldn't mind being called a slut, so a woman who slept with one man, one time, that we know of should be called a slut because "liar" isn't a bad enough word that makes our hurt feelings go away.

    I remain unpersuaded.

  • MarkLastname||

    Or another parallel: would anyone take a man seriously who tried to make a massive socio-political issue out of being accused of not being able to get laid or having a small penis?

    #banmicropenis?

  • Motrin_Peddler||

    "Fuck me in the butt"
    One of her messages to her "rapist". Read the lawsuit. She's going to be even more well known soon enough...

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Her sluttiness is irrelevant.

  • grrizzly||

    "Punch back twice as hard."

    This is exactly what I mean.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Oh, just call her Hitler and get it over with.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    Can we do that?

    HITLER!!!!

  • hamilton||

    You know who else was called Hitler...

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    Mama Hitler?

  • Lesdouche||

    Shitler

  • grrizzly||

    "Hitler" has lost its power to shock. "Slut", on the other hand, immediately brings out a strong emotional reaction.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Slutler.

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    *opera applause*

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Since neither applies and it's all based on simply what makes YOU giggle, why stop there?

    I say she's an interstellar tomato. Zing!

  • ||

    Tomato?

    Dude. Not cool.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Aaand that's your quota. You're allowed to "dude, so not cool" me three times a week.

    Now all we have to talk about is food and pot.

  • ||

    I only get to "dude, not cool" you three times a week?

    Dude, not coo...oh crap.

  • Slammer||

    Mattressführer

  • Lesdouche||

    I wonder if a mental mattress is used for mental rape.

  • Hey Nikki!||

    So you think it's a good idea to call women who have sex sluts? Because then they...won't accuse people of raping them if they regret it later?

  • grrizzly||

    Not all women, only those who accuse and conspire to accuse innocent people of rape.

  • Hey Nikki!||

    I'm sure that'll learn 'em. I mean, they'll definitely be thrilled to admit their later sexual relationships were something they wanted.

  • KB Check Release||

    I think it's fair game to call any woman who sleeps around a slut.

    I think it's also fair game to call a woman who accuses someone of rape in order to AVOID being called a slut when she is, in fact, sleeping around a fucking jezebel cum slut liar.

    Got a problem with that? Oh wait I don't care.

  • Hey Nikki!||

    And what exactly do you know about her sexual history?

  • MarkLastname||

    Maybe if we give some positive reaffirmation to men who are virgins into their 30s instead of shaming them for it then they won't be inclined to rape? Or shoot up their office?

    Probably not, but that seems to be the way we're going as far as explaining bad behavior.

  • ||

    Her sluttiness is irrelevant.

    Agreed. If she lied, she should be called out on it. If it becomes about whether or not she's a slut then the whole thing will get derailed hard into discussions of the inherent misogyny in our language and culture and whether or not she's a liar will get drowned out in (more) stupid gender identity politics

  • grrizzly||

    Actually her sluttiness if factually relevant. If Emma Sulkowicz hadn't let every cute guy who smiled at her fuck her in the butt, she would not have been in this situation.

  • Hamster of Doom||


    If Emma Sulkowicz hadn't let every cute guy who smiled at her fuck her in the butt, she would not have been in this situation.


    Grizz. Brah. You've got issues. I know you're feeling traumatized, but let's stick to what actually happened, no need to Sulkowicz up the thread.

  • Hey Nikki!||

    Actually her sluttiness if factually relevant. If Emma Sulkowicz hadn't let every cute guy who smiled at her fuck her in the butt, she would not have been in this situation.

    It's a well known fact that virgins cannot lie about being raped.

  • ||

    I must be missing something about this case that makes her being a slut relevant. The formulation that people who willingly have sex can't be raped is a particularly awful one. What matters is whether or not she lied about the instance in question.

    Focusing on her being a slut instead of her being a liar fouls the waters pretty badly and can only serve as a distracting side show.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    It's all about our feelz now, Jesse. It's feelz all the way down!

  • grrizzly||

    "The formulation that people who willingly have sex can't be raped is a particularly awful one."

    We are not talking about a theoretical situation. The facts on the ground are rather well established: Sulkowicz willingly engaged in anal sex from the beginning to the end. Thus, she, Sulkowicz, was not raped.

  • ||

    That's fine. Facts on the ground show that she's a liar. "Liar" points with laser focus to the heart of this case, and drains the emotion out of it. "Slut" plays around the edges and makes the entire issue emotional. I really don't see how focusing on "slut" is anything other than counter-productive.

  • MarkLastname||

    I also thought 'slut' was now supposed to be a positive word? Slutwalks and all that.

    I'm confuse. Which words are we banning and which ones are we inverting?

  • ||

    If it becomes about whether or not she's a slut then the whole thing will get derailed hard into discussions of the inherent misogyny in our language and culture and whether or not she's a liar will get drowned out in (more) stupid gender identity politics

    Right, because when Jackie lied and there wasn't any sex involved we managed to safely glide right past that quagmire.

    I get the notion of slippery slopes, but forcing false notions of mutual exclusion is not the solution.

  • ||

    Right, because when Jackie lied and there wasn't any sex involved we managed to safely glide right past that quagmire.

    So we know people use this as a tactic to derail, so we should be really gung-ho about powering into that derailment?

    I get the notion of slippery slopes, but forcing false notions of mutual exclusion is not the solution.

    Is this just word salad? If her being a slut actually mattered here then focusing on it would be important, consenting to one encounter really isn't consenting to all encounters, so is she a liar? Then go after her for that.

  • ||

    If her being a slut actually mattered here then focusing on it would be important, consenting to one encounter really isn't consenting to all encounters, so is she a liar?

    Her sexual proclivity is certainly an issue. There is no magic causality firewall that neatly contains the moral flaw of lying while preserving the sanctity of their blessed union.

    She's not a slut because she did/didn't consent or had consented in the past. She's not a slut because she had absolutely too much or the wrong kind of sex. She's a slut because she had more sex than she could handle *and* she's extorting/soliciting the people around her for emotional support.

  • Hey Nikki!||

    You have no idea whether she had "more sex than she could handle." That is you making up bullshit about this story because you have a problem with women's sexuality.

  • ||

    Well, being unable to forbid infanticides, how else are we going to keep a woman sexuality from getting out of control?

  • ||

    There is no magic causality firewall that neatly contains the moral flaw of lying while preserving the sanctity of their blessed union.

    You work hard to make your statements sound like a 5th grader who found a thesaurus, don't you? You haven't actually said anything convincing there. You've waved your hands and said that you find it easier to believe women who sleep around are liars, which is great, you've confirmed Hamster and Nikki's assumptions of what men using slut are playing at.

    Also if we're going to operate under radically new definitions of what a slut is that you've just made up right now, you should probably inform us in the beginning rather than when the thread dies.

  • This Machine||

    I think Sluttly Little Liar would be a better description. Emma Sulkowicz is a slut but she's that pretty. Sulkowicz and her ilk don't care about telling the truth but they surely hate to be regarded as sluts. Hit them where it hurts.

    Something something slut shaming something mumble unfairly judgmental grumble something mommy issues grumble mumble.

  • ||

    Sulkowicz and her ilk don't care about telling the truth but they surely hate to be regarded as sluts. Hit them where it hurts.

    I get where you're going with this, and it's not a bad strategy, but it looks really bad at first glance.

  • grrizzly||

    The strategy is to make Google auto-complete "Emma Sulkowicz is" with "a slut" as the second option. The first one should be "Emma Sulkowicz is a liar."

  • ||

    Google appears to have disabled autocomplete for the string "Emma Sulkowicz is". The first suggested completion for "Emma Sulkowicz" is "liar", though.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Punch back twice as hard.

  • ||

    Be soothed

    Look at Nicole, soothing people left and right.

    *snicker*

  • Hey Nikki!||

    You know how I do.

  • Brando||

    It's true, as some of Emma's defenders argue, that rape victims don't have a "correct" way to act after the fact, and that strange or irrational behavior on their part does not mean they haven't been raped. At the same time, there really is no evidence--save for Emma's word--that Nungesser raped her. On that alone--aside even from the fact that Emma maintained a relationship with him afterward, and her story doesn't make a lot of sense--shouldn't the likes of Marcotte at least make the attempt to adopt an "innocent until proven guilty" view of this?

    Imagine for a minute if her attitude were used on an accused murderer or robber--particularly if the accused were poor and black. That attitude would be considered noxious in the leftist circles in which she swims.

  • JW||

    It's true, as some of Emma's defenders argue, that rape victims don't have a "correct" way to act after the fact, and that strange or irrational behavior on their part does not mean they haven't been raped

    Reasonable person standard.

    Sorry, but this is a claim that will have to be repeatedly documented to be even considered to be possible.

  • Brando||

    My point is that victims of trauma often react in irrational, inexplicable ways. This particular case though at the very least raises serious doubts, requiring further inquiry--and the fact that there is no evidence besides her word on it that he raped her means he is still presumed innocent and the media goons who treat her like a victim and him like a rapist who got away with it are displaying an ugly form of mob justice. They'd fit right in with whites of the Jim Crow days.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Imagine for a minute if her attitude were used on an accused murderer or robber--particularly if the accused were poor and black. That attitude would be considered noxious in the leftist circles in which she swims.

    You answered your own question. Her victim was not poor and black, he is a member of the patriarchy, and Emma's story advanced the narrative, so it was not questioned.

  • Alec Leamas||

    They say this so that there is essentially no exculpatory evidence that they have to accept as probative of the question at issue. "Victim" recalls the incorrect date and venue of the alleged "rape" after the accused can prove his whereabouts at the date and time in question? No worries, trauma victims do that sometimes (cf UVA Jackie, Crystal Mangum). "Victim" carries on documented romantic and/or sexual relationship with accused after "rape" until a humiliating rejection by the accused? Sometimes trauma victims don't realize that they are victims right away and need time to reflect on their trauma. The sophistry is endless.

    We're essentially at the point where the feminist agitators and the cowed/ideologically aligned institutions are open to the idea of spectral evidence.

  • Brando||

    I'm not saying the problems with her story (of which there are many) should be ignored--I thought I made that clear. But it is true that people suffering trauma can do bizarre things that make little sense to the rest of us.

    My overall point though is that it makes sense why Nungesser was cleared even by the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard, and the fact that the evidence weighs in his favor requires a reasonable person to accept that he is innocent and she is not a victim. This is how we need to be treating anyone accused of a crime.

  • ||

    Also, it's total bullcrap. A person's posttraumatic actions will be no more irrational than any others of that person's behaviors, and will likely be more rational than less. And they will always follow some kind of logic which, no matter how obnoxious to reason, render them entirely explicable. The claim that raped folks end up behaving in ways that are irrational (moreso than is usual for such persons before the rape) and inexplicable renders the raped person equivalent to the incurable psychotic. Putting aside the crasiness of the idea that raping someone relieves him of the powers of reason and volition, accepting this view necessarily makes every raped person an entirely untrustworthy witness, since his actions (including any statements) do not conform to any rational laws nor even to any irrational logic whereby they might be rendered explicable to any sane (unraped) person. If that were the case, then we must immediately dismiss any claims made by anybody who was raped. There would be no such thing as a credible account from any raped person.

  • John C. Randolph||

    shouldn't the likes of Marcotte at least make the attempt to adopt an "innocent until proven guilty" view of this?

    Why would you imagine that Marcotte, the head cheerleader of the Duke Lynch Mob, would give a shit about truth or fairness?

    -jcr

  • Nick H||

    and all those that are truly raped/assaulted suffer as a result of these prevaricators

  • Ver Greeneyes||

    Not to mention that they reinforce the climate of fear and paranoia plaguing women in general. Not all men are monsters - I'd wager the vast majority are, in fact, fairly decent people. But with feminists and other media sources constantly reinforcing the narrative that all men are rapists deep down, it's no surprise that women are starting to interpret every smile or friendly hello as the sign of a stalker.

  • The Grinch||

    Has anyone on this thread seen a synopsis of the merits, or lack thereof, of Nungesser's suit? If so, where?

    I know I could Google it myself but I'm a lazy, lazy man.

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    There is one at the Volokh site on the WaPo...can't find link...I are also lazeeeee.

  • ||

    IANAL, but it's actually quite clever. He's suing the university under Title IX, which is usually used by women alleging anti-women discrimination. All he has to prove is that Columbia enabled, nay encouraged, Sulkowicz' actions. That way very little has to be said about the rape allegation, mostly that the allegations were made and that Nungesser was subsequently cleared. Columbia has deep pockets and losing a Title IX lawsuit would virtually force the feds to come down on them. Suspect they will settle with him - exchanging their money for his silence. And I imagine that he really doesn't want to spend the rest of his life talking about that, so win-win.

    Had Nungesser sued Sulkowicz her defense would have gone more into the allegations, Nungesser would look bad for going after an accredited victim, and she (probably) has no money of her own; so absolutely nothing to be gained there.

    This will be a poke in the eye for Columbia, other colleges and the US Dept. of Education.

  • ||

    "Necer sue a poor person when you can suue a wealthy institution instead."

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I wouldn't find seeing an injunction against Sulkowicz.

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    Get judgment agin' Columbia first, then go for civil injunction...

  • Alec Leamas||

    I do think it is odd that he's not suing Sulkowicz, her co-conspirators, and those people (i.e. Senator Gillibrand) who republished her false accusations after the truth about them was widely known - while she doesn't have money now, a judgment for defamation is non-dischargeable in bankruptcy, so she wouldn't be able to own any property or money without Nungusser being able to seize it to partially satisfy the judgment for the duration of the judgment's statute of limitations. A lawyer might balk at contingent representation against judgment-proof defendant(s), but it would be nice for Nungusser to be able to ruin her life for the foreseeable future as an act of retribution.

    Also as someone else wrote, it would be nice to enjoin her's and others' (Gillibrand, again) continued repetition of false rape allegations against this man. Unlike alleged "hate speech," demonstrably false, repeated rape allegations are not protected speech under the First Amendment. Teaching this lesson to a sitting United States Senator and alleged lawyer would be a nice bonus as well.

  • Deli-bro||

    "complimenting some points Adam had made in a class discussion (which "felt like he was claiming a collective sense of power")."

    Ok, I'm not proud to admit this. but I'm usually pretty good at interpreting SJW-ese, but wtf does that even mean? It sounds like Adam was mad that him and Paul weren't as good friends anymore, so Paul starts to sit close to him and agree with him in class discussions? That's seen as an act of hostility now? Is this enough questions?

    /Judge Napolitano

  • HolgerDanske||

    I think "Adam" was whining that he thought Nungesser was trying to look like the bigger person, in front of their class mates.

    If you have a paranoid bent, this can look like an attack, rather than someone seeking reconciliation.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    I was fifteen when I has an epiphany. All those stupid conflicts on sitcoms were inevitably based on bad communication, and if the two parties had simply discussed things like rational adults, all the tedium could have been bypassed. I've spent the last two decades trying to get everyone I know to sit down and talk about stuff, and you'd be surprised how few people want to do this. Apparently we really were given speech solely to hide our thoughts.

  • Marshall Gill||

    I've spent the last two decades trying to get everyone I know to sit down and talk about stuff, and you'd be surprised how few people want to do this.

    You are such a chick.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    *stomps foot*

    It just makes sense to have the treaty committee before the war. No one misses lunch that way.

    (Yeah. Such a chick.)

  • HolgerDanske||

    I subscribe to your idea that rational adults can overcome almost anything with communication.

    Sadly, we're talking about what appears to be irrational children.

  • HalJordan||

    I think you posted this just because you knew it would intellectually engage me and force me to respond. This is equivalent to mind raping me and this kind of baiting comment is tantamount to stalking. i am going to sue you...

    See what I did there. Pretending to be one of these Ivy league SJW's is fun!

  • Tak Kak||

    "our friendship has been negatively affected"

    Do men actually talk like this now?

  • Nick H||

    I can't see any man that I know, utter these words

  • ||

    Men, no. SJWs with a penis, probably.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Is he an SJW? Still? I would've thought being a victim of the SJW mob would smarten him up, even if he was before?

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Adam (the guy who said "our friendship has been negatively affected") wasn't the victim of the SJW mob. Nungesser was.

  • JW||

    Men? No.

    "Men?" Yes.

  • BiPolarMoment||

    Myn?

  • Slammer||

    No, man. Shit, no, man. I believe you'd get your ass kicked sayin' something like that, man.

  • DEATFBIRSECIA||

    Hey Peter, man, check out Channel 9, it's the breast exam! Woo!

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Best part of that movie.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    You know the McDonalds down in Vascolitas? Yeah, I did the drywall there.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Watch out for yer cornhole buddy!

  • ||

    Not among my friends... okay I don't have any. *hangs head in shame*

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Possibly the kind it takes 2-3 minutes to decide whether the handy they're currently receiving is welcomed or not.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    So I guess Sulkowicz is gonna be like Linus with his blanket, forever lugging that mattress everywhere?

    I'm no shrink but simple life experience tells me that at some point she's gonna have to drop the mattress and move on. This assumes of course that something actually happened, which frankly seems overly generous absent some real evidence.

  • the other Jim||

    Maybe she'll write a histrionic op-ed for the Washington Post about "the day I decided to stop carrying a mattress as a symbol of my horrific rape." That day might conveniently happen right after graduation when she realizes carrying a mattress around the world outside her college campus is a big hassle and makes her look crazy. Or perhaps it'll come when Columbia's lawyers start begging her to knock it off.

  • ThomasD||

    She'll knock it off when Columbia's lawyers present her with the documents assuring her a tenured position at Columbia.

  • ||

    No, I don't think she'll be welcome there after this. She's going to cost them big time.

  • Invisible Finger||

    She'll knock it off when the trust fund runs out.

  • ||

    I suspect that she will drop the mattress after graduation. If she doesn't, then she's loony tunes, or playing loony tunes for strategic advantage. She could end up suing Columbia for not recognizing that she was loony tunes and then not doing something about that.

  • JW||

    So I guess Sulkowicz is gonna be like Linus with his blanket, forever lugging that mattress everywhere?

    She's getting a tat of it on her back.

  • block30||

    These cases are very personal to me. Towards the end of a deployment at base X I was accused of entering a female dorm at base Y. Over a period of about two weeks I was continually brought in to my first sergeant's office and the accusations got wilder and wilder up to and including being accused of a drunken sexual assault on a female. At first the military's case was stymied because I could not have possibly been physically present where they said I was on the date they claimed. Not even close. Well wouldn't you know, next time I was called in for more bullshit charges, the military changed the date to when I was at base Y. I think my only saving grace was my extremely short time (about 2 hours) at base Y where I had a rock solid alibi-tons of witnesses, and the fact I didn't go from one isolated part of the base to another when the supposed event occurred. I asked for legal council, and didn't get any...I was basically told if I just fessed up, the charges would be less and the whole thing would be easier on me.

    I figured I WAS going to prison, my wife WOULD leave me, my family and friends WOULD disown me, and I WOULD NOT be employable when I got out of prison. I still don't know why I was accused or if there was an actual victim. I understand the need to protect women, but I can say first hand that if you are a man, and a scrutinizing eye is cast upon you, you are screwed. You are guilty until proven ridiculously, and overwhelmingly innocent.

  • ||

    That's pretty awful.

  • Antilles||

    Having served in the military myself, I can attest to this type of unfounded persecution (something I luckily escaped). Ironic that the very people who defend our Constitution aren't themselves protected by it.

  • Malvolio||

    You know how they say in the military, "We are here to defend Democracy, not to practice it." I think it is true of a lot of aspects of American life: the American military guarantees those aspects continue to exist, but does not afford them to its own members.

  • ||

    Always get legal counsel in those circumstances, even if you have to pay for it yourself.

    So, what happened to you?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Hrmm... 'block30' is his cell block?

  • ||

    Good call, UCS.

  • block30||

    Block 30 is a version of F-16. I'm glad you think this is funny.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You are guilty until proven ridiculously, and overwhelmingly innocent.

    I don't think they found it funny. I think it was probably gallows humor in agreement of the truth of the above sentiment.

  • block30||

    Then I apologize, as you can see this was and is a very real life changing event for me. I am still concerned speaking about this matter, so I only do so anonymously or in personal situations. I had at one time considered approaching the military or the SARC folks about this event and what can be done to protect alleged agressors. At this point, I honestly feel doing so would only bring harsh blow back on me. This is not the narrative the military or really any visible institution wants to hear, let's just be honest. I think I would be attacked by feminist aligned groups, and my civilian career also affected. I used to be liberal (sorry!). This among other things I've personally experienced (especially college) or read have changed me to a firm constitution believer, and libertarian. I strongly feel the left is impinging on our constitutional rights, especially the 1st amendment. I am glad I've found Reason to be a strong voice against tyranny.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...as you can see this was and is a very real life changing event for me.

    No fucking doubt. Having institutions coming down on you would have to leave you pretty goddamned helpless.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Jeez, Fist, what are the odds we'd both post a reply using the term 'gallows humor'? Great minds or something like that......

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You're just another of my sockpuppets, I assume.

  • ||

    Fist is correct.

    Many of us here, including, notably, me, are quick to anger, so no hard feelings.

  • C. Anacreon||

    Posters on this site tend to have gallows humor. I don't think he meant to insult you or your terrible experience. My sympathy for what sounds like a real nightmare.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Everything is funny, or you end up crying.

  • UnCivilServant||

    But, as C. Anacreon state, none of the jest is meant to actually wound. I figured you didn't actually end up in prison from the context.

  • block30||

    I apologize, I get gallows humor. And I definitely support your right to say what you want, whether I like it or not. I am glad people can fire away on Reason, I wish it were so for the rest of America...like the constitution should uphold.

  • ||

    Or lose an eye.

  • block30||

    Yeah, in hind sight, I should have fought back harder. I was scared to death, and didn't know what to do. I should have contacted my JAG back at home base and the Guard Bureau. (I'm a Guard guy.). I was also separated from my guard unit and integrated with active duty, so I felt I had no one trusted to turn to.

    What happened is they just stopped calling me in an upping their accusations. It just stopped. Maybe they took about five minutes of investigation amd realized that yeah, I could not have possibly been where they said I was. I'd see the first sergeant around, and he was like nothing happened. Why this whole thing occurred is something I can only speculate on. What's troublesome is what if I didn't have that solid of a story? What if I had time by myself?

    To this day I am uncomfortable working with women in the military. I want to avoid confrontation at almost all costs because I know the witch hunt that will ensue. I've also observed male/female problems escalate rapidly. To make a long story short, I've seen supervisors suddenly have to fight for their career or clean record after critiquing a female subordinate. I don't care what official press releases say, that is reality. In will again say I understand the importance of protecting our women. I am concerned the pendulum has swung too far against men's rights.

  • MarkLastname||

    Authorities: "Sir, we are accusing you of rape."
    Accused: "What, who am I accused of raping, and when?
    Authorities: "That depends. What days were you in town, and who could you have rape?"

    We need a new word for this type of scenario. Kafkaesque doesn't work; even Kafka stories made more sense.

  • ||

    I went to the Jezebel site and read the comments about her graduation and it was downright scary. They refused to even entertain the notion that she might be lying and that the accused got railroaded.

  • ||

    Of course, Ed, of course. Remember, facts are bourgeois, especially when they contradict the narrative.

  • Walter Peck||

    At some point, there may have been posters that would disagree. Places like Jezebel ban them.

  • MarkLastname||

    "Ah, if only we could do this in real life!" /jezebeler

  • sarcasmic||

    It would take a lot of alcohol to make her attractive enough to fuck.

  • Mx. F. Stupidity, Jr.||

    She looks like a dude with long hair.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's difficult to rape someone who is so unattractive that the amount of booze required to find them appealing is enough to keep you from being able to get it up.

  • Malvolio||

    Mattress girl? Maybe you are living up to your screen-name, but the only thing that would keep me from sleeping with her is the certainty she would charge me with rape the next morning -- and that is just barely enough.

  • sarcasmic||

    She's got the jiggly bits in the right place, but otherwise I find her to be quite unattractive. No sarcasm.

  • Paul.||

    I have to admit, I'd have gotten in trouble with her.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    I dunno, I'm not 20 anymore, but I think at the time I would've hit that.

  • Rhywun||

    He claimed that after much self-doubt and internal struggle, he finally reported this incident, first to a student society to which both he and Nungesser belonged and then in a formal complaint to the university in the fall of 2014.

    From the "shit that didn't happen" files. Who gets raped and their first thought is "Call my student society"?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Call my student society"

    At school, I didn't even know the contact information for student societies.

  • Rhywun||

    At school, I was never coherent long enough to join one. Or attend most of my classes at times.

  • Paul.||

    Someone hoping to get a mention by the UN Secretary General, interviews on The View, and credit for a performance art project. Maybe even a Rolling Stone article.

  • Paul.||

    Now, I have learned that after a hearing in late April, Nungesser was found "not responsible" in this latest case—altogether, the fourth time he has been cleared of a sexual assault charge at Columbia.

    Man, this guy has some balls. This guy continues to go to school here when he's going to be a magnet for every half-baked, crazy so-called activist gunning for him and trying to make a reputation for themselves. If he ends up alone in a bathroom with another human being, you know someone's going to level a charge on him.

  • JW||

    Charge? A big enough dude/dudes with liquid courage and an sense of chivalry sized inversely to their brains is all it will take.

  • ||

    Yeah, except that as each one is frivolously thrown at him and then proved false, he looks more and more like a target and he gets more bulletproof each time. The funny thing is, this is classic prog stupidity. If this guy were an actual rapist, their idiotic and sub-par attempts to frame him are doing the exact opposite: making him look like a victim. So he could then actually go and rape someone and no one would believe them if they came forward.

    It's astonishing how so much of what progs do and believe have the absolute opposite effects from what they supposedly want.

  • Paul.||

    The Facebook exchange, which Adam himself eventually found and turned over to the investigators, did not exactly help his story. Far from showing avoidance of Nungesser, it showed Adam seeking him out, complaining that "our friendship has been negatively affected" by Nungesser's relationship problems and that "we're less close/you're preferring it that way."

    Live by the facebook, die by the facebook.

    These "deliberately aggressive acts" consisted of sitting too close to Adam or to his friends, which left Adam "distraught and traumatized," and complimenting some points Adam had made in a class discussion (which "felt like he was claiming a collective sense of power").

    I'm trying to imagine me at that age or... or... ok, pretty much anyone I knew, male or female making official complaints about feeling 'distraught and traumatized' because someone 'sat too close' to me in class.

    Has Amurrica's youth really become this sissified?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Has Amurrica's youth really become this sissified?

    Yes

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    No. What's happened is that a small percentage of crazy people have managed to get far more power than their numbers justify by being loud, obnoxious, and engaging in mob tactics.

    I am part of 'Amurrica's youth' and literally none of the people I know behave like this.

  • Paul.||

    You know who else got more power than their numbers justified by being loud, obnoxious and engaging in mob tactics?

  • Xeones||

    Tribbles?

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    *rises to begin thunderous applause*

  • Slammer||

    The cops?

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    Followers of the the Brothers Gracchi?

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    Seahawks fans?

  • ||

    U MAD BRO?

  • The Blind Gawd Luvia||

    5 Seconds of Summer?

  • This Machine||

    O'Hunslayer is right. The reason these petulant, narcissistic, toddler-brained morons get so much attention is because they're practiced experts when it comes to throwing tantrums. Maybe it's because I generally don't associate with people who can't wipe their own ass, but I can't think of a single acquaintance who would dare to act this way, either publicly or privately.

  • Paul.||

    So what you and Irish are saying is that you're self-selecting yourselves out of sissification. That's hardly scientific!

  • ||

    Has Amurrica's youth really become this sissified?

    Yes. And that's why we're doomed as a civilization. ISIS look at shit like this and laugh at us. They know they only have to wait a couple of generations until the warrior gene has disappeared because everyone with that died young or was incarcerated. I only wish I'd still be around to see the looks of horrified realization that this was a failure of prog policy.

  • Paul.||

    My perception of 'sissified' might be skewed, I admit.

    In my youth I counted as my friends those Chola girls who wore too much eye makeup and would throw down in a fight.

  • ||

    No. Certain loud, emotionally damaged people have taken to complaining about shit like this because it's accepted because of the new-ish fetishizing of "victims". When you create any kind of position that gives people kudos, some people are going to lie about having the qualifications for that position. One of the "positions" that has been given the biggest fetishization is "rape victim".

    And so you will get unscrupulous, unbalanced people who will find a way to get themselves qualified as the victim they want to be, no matter what it takes, including complaining about absurdly minor personal space violations or whatever. And sometimes, you will get a Jackie.

    Create positions of "power" (because being feted for being a victim is a type of power), and the worst possible people with the worst motivations will gravitate to them. This doesn't apply only to cops or politicians. It applies to everything.

  • B.P.||

    These people are lunatics. And they will be running stuff soon.

  • bacon-magic||

    Sting made a song about it...

  • ||

    "Solsbury Hill?"

  • John C. Randolph||

    Sounds like Adam was carrying a torch for Nungesser, and saw an opportunity to lash out at him by tossing one more bullshit story on the pile.

    -jcr

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    "Adam, who also graduates this week, told Jezebel that "he was close friends with Paul during his freshman year in 2011" and that "one fall night, in the midst of an emotional conversation in Paul's dorm room...Paul pushed him onto his bed and sexually assaulted him." He claimed that after much self-doubt and internal struggle, he finally reported this incident, first to a student society to which both he and Nungesser belonged and then in a formal complaint to the university in the fall of 2014. Adam rather melodramatically lamented that my Daily Beast piece "invalidates and completely erases [his] experience.""

    This strikes me as really odd. How many sexual predators prey on both men and women in this way? I guess it's not outside the realm of possibility and I've heard of child molesters preying on both genders, but don't people who are assaulting full grown adults normally stick to one gender?

  • Paul.||

    I guess it's not outside the realm of possibility and I've heard of child molesters preying on both genders, but don't people who are assaulting full grown adults normally stick to one gender?

    Warty? What say you?

  • sarcasmic||

    How many sexual predators prey on both men and women in this way?

    Ask Warty.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    "According to Adam, during this conversation Nungesser asked him to sit on the bed, rubbed his shoulder and back, then "gently" pushed him down and proceeded to stroke his leg and finally massage his crotch "for approximately 2-3 minutes" while Adam froze in shock. He was finally able to muster the will to get up and leave."

    What. A man was massaging your penis "gently" and you couldn't "muster the will" to get up and leave? And this was after he massaged your shoulder, back, and thighs?

    So he just kind of rubbed on you for like 10 minutes and at no time did you think to get up and leave?

  • tarran||

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    Hall of Fame....classic.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Given that Adam is obviously a complete and total beta, I find his supposed response believable.

  • Paul.||

    *nods slowly*

  • ||

    That's one consistent theme we see in these stories of "well he sort of raped me but I could have left at any time so...". Things like being molested for minutes at a time and doing...nothing. Being able to leave and actually explicitly saying "I could have left but I didn't want to cause a scene".

    I'm pretty sure it's bits like these that cause a *lot* of skepticism in those who don't uncritically accept these stories.

  • Hey Nikki!||

    Not just skepticism. Some of these claims, I believe (not this one). It's just that I don't think it's rape, and I lose all respect for the complainant. If you're alleging a heinous crime, but "causing a scene" was worse than being a victim, uh...

  • ||

    I think you lose all respect for them not because "causing a scene" is worse than being a victim. It's because for them, being a victim is better than just about anything. Think about that. To them, the social value of getting victim status is more important than getting out of a bad situation. Think of how obscene a mental calculus that is.

  • Hey Nikki!||

    Well, that's part of it. But mostly I just think they're lying, because whatever it is that happened to them was apparently just not that bad but they sure want to make it sound like it was now.

  • Alec Leamas||

    Backpfeifengesicht personified Ezra Klein basically admitted that the whole purpose of the rape hysterics and conveniently presented remedial measures (affirmative consent, among others) is to cause terror in heterosexual men and set their libidos in opposition to their interests in self preservation. Put simply, nobody has sex - nor will anybody have sex - in the manner that "affirmative consent" prescribes. So, in effect, every act of sexual conduct will be a crime the punishment of which will be within the caprice of the female participant in the encounter. For an example of how far they're willing to go, refer to the accusations of Nungusser's ex girlfriend.

    The object is to give women extreme leverage to ruin men's lives if they are displeased - think that Twilight Zone where the creepy kid can read thoughts and kill people with his own.

    On isolation, this just seems like a strange story that doesn't hang together quite right, and as an opportunity to poke fun at the craziness of the Left. The mistake in that is that these ruses are loosely coordinated political agitation which, in the aggregate, are serving as the justification for Kafkaesque deprivations of liberty and aggregation of immense power in the hands of SJW types for its inevitable misuse.

  • HolgerDanske||

    Same reason things like gun restraining orders and hate speech laws are being pursued. Make it risky to take part in unapproved activities that are ultimately tied to basic rights.

    I'm not sure there is a wider conspiracy behind this, it's probably just a fundamentally intuitive thing for the kind of people who love to wield power.

  • Fabi||

    Also, I don't like nobody touching me. Now, any of you homos touch me, and I'll kill you.

    / Francis

  • WTF||

    "Lighten up, Francis."

  • ||

    Well that settles it. Stop immigration from Germany and deport all Germans.

  • WTF||

    You know who else caused problems with immigrating Germans?

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    Gaius Marius?

  • Pan Zagloba||

    Didn't he more of solve the problem?

    I say, Alaric!

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    I suspect the Germans thought he caused trouble with them, whilst they were simply exercising freedom of movement across arbitrary Roman borders

    /Dalmia

  • ||

    Probably roughly equal to the number of bisexuals in society.

  • Princess Trigger||

    Isn't the REAL VICTIM the Mattress?
    Isn't the real hero the Mattress?
    Shouldn't it be invited to the next State of the Union address?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Are you kidding me?

    That mattress is Just. Like. Adam. Lanza.

  • ||

    Been meaning to ask. Was it a memory foam mattress?

  • WTF||

    The memory is seared, seared, into the foam.

  • PBR Streetgang||

    Emma's parents are both psychiatrists. Shocking I know.

  • ||

    That explains so much.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    A whole family of failures.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    On Tuesday, Sulkowicz carried her mattress across the stage at Class Day, despite half-hearted attempts by Columbia officials to enforce a regulation against bringing "large objects" into the ceremonial area...Her activism was also lauded (with no mention of her name) by two commencement speakers...

    I know I'd never be picked, but, as a New Yorker, I hope like hell I wind up on the Nungesser v. Columbia jury. A rather largish portion of Columbia's Harlem real estate portfolio would wind up Mr. Nungesser's Harlem real estate portfolio.

  • ||

    They will settle. See my 1:18 comment above.

  • Fabi||

    Half-hearted attempts by Columbia to stop her continued lunacy at the graduation ceremony should factor into the size of the settlement. Half-hearted! 'We know we're in a lawsuit over the matter, but we didn't want any hurt feelingz.'

  • ||

    I view that as more of a strategic move on the part of Columbia. Had they specifically told her to not carry the mattress at graduation, then she'd have sued them. They probably figured that the amount by which the mattress-at-graduation stunt would increase their settlement with Nungesser would be much less than the amount they'd have to pay out in a settlement with her (which would still be in addition to a Nungesser settlement).

  • Alec Leamas||

    I can't imagine the legal theory that would allow her to sue Columbia from prohibiting her to carry an article of furniture at the University's graduation.

  • ||

    Emotional distress. Arbitrary and capricious policy change clearly targeting her. Etc. Remember they (Columbia through one of it's employees) encouraged her to do this for the longest time.

  • Fabi||

    Good point. Considering her past (and present) actions, that may be the winning cost/benefit assessment for the school.

  • See Double You||

    If Columbia didn't allow her to carry the mattress, it could be evidence of admitting fault.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    On the other hand Nungesser is already suing them. Allowing her to carry the mattress pretty much shows they've made no effort to remediate the situation.

  • ||

    "Together, we [came] to a better understanding of our shared trauma"

    To lie and even commit a crime of false accusation.

  • ||

    Sulkowicz: Immoral or disturbed? Evil or crazy? Show your work.

  • Xeones||

    All of the above?

  • tarran||

    Both...

    Her behavior is going to put her in hot water and she can't stop her self: ergo, she is disturbed.

    She uses deception to keep her scam running; she knows she is hurting people and wants to keep her perfidy a secret: ergo she is immoral.

    QED.

  • Alec Leamas||

    I don't know that she's disturbed in excess of what your neighborhood SJW is at any given time (which is, of course, quite disturbed) - I think that she's in so deep at this point that to cease carrying the mattress would be tantamount to an admission that she's the perpetrator of a hoax. It's classic doubling down/ego investment/sunk cost behavior (which is also engaged in by her supporters after the allegations are shown to be dubious at best).

  • ||

    Can I use stick people?

  • The Blind Gawd Luvia||

    ... or one of Pam's dolphin hand puppets?

  • ||

    Work:

    Sulkowicz = Warty's mom

  • ||

    Sulkowicz: my mom::Hippopotamus:Epi's mom

  • ||

    So you're admitting you prefer to sleep with hippos? AH HA. GOTCHA.

  • Plàya Manhattan.||

    I'd stick it in all of those.

  • B.P.||

    Perhaps it's like being a prosecutor in one of those 1980s satan-worshipping preschool torture cases. You run with something and are celebrated for it to the point that the rhetoric has created a new reality in your brain. At some point it's a little too late to say "whoops".

    Or she could be immoral.

  • the other Jim||

    I lean toward your "new reality" explanation. Keeping up the mattress-toting act for such a long time seems tough to do for someone sane who knows it's premised on a lie. Especially a lie that, if believed, would cause another person serious harm. I read quite a few of her (horribly spelled and articulated) conversations with Nungesser. She comes off as unbalanced and obsessive.

  • Invisible Finger||

    I'll take the Szasz line: immoral and evil.

  • ||

    I got a taste of dealing with psycho-loons yesterday at work. It's not totally unrelated as I believe this sort of mindset grips people like Mattress 'I like it in the butt' Girl.

    One of my clients (keep this in mind: his wife is my chef and a guy I generally get on fine with), came in sprouting all kinds of stuff including how he refuses to speak French to cops and about the disappearance of Native women and the lack of interest for the RCMP to investigate them. His tangent, inevitably, led to charges of Harper being a 'criminal'. I was just nodding along hoping no other parents came in to listen to him.

    I did my best Aqua-Man telepathically asking him to simmer down but it got worse. He suddenly, as his anger was getting the better of him, attacked me by saying, 'you voted for Harper! I can tell! As far as I'm concerned (shooing me away) I have no time for you because you support a criminal. He got 21% of the vote!"

    Now. At this point what can you do in the face of such idiocy but stand in awe and shock?

    But he loves the salary I pay his wife though.

  • ||

    At this point what can you do in the face of such idiocy but stand in awe and shock?

    Tell his wife that her idiot husband did his best to get her fired. See how he acts after he recovers.

  • Xeones||

    Yikes. NEVER piss off a woman who handles knives for a living.

  • Paul.||

    Yikes. NEVER piss off a woman who handles knives for a living.

    Fixed.

  • ||

    I told my sister to keep it in the back of her mind if I ever do.

    But she asked me to brush it off because the chef is good and her husband is constantly putting her in uncomfortable positions; not to mention he drives her to buy the food for the daycare. Which solves a huge problem for us.

    He's an idiot and I just have to pragmatically look at the benefits.

    For now.

  • Sevo||

    "[...]He's an idiot and I just have to pragmatically look at the benefits.[...]"

    Suggestion:
    Keep a sort of a diary about what happens, what you do or not do and why. If it ever gets really bad, it might turn out to be very handy.

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    Very, very good advice.

  • ||

    I should.

  • ||

    Don't know what employment law is like in Canuckistan, and IANAL, but as good as it would feel to follow the Wartster's advice I feel that would ultimately be counterproductive.

    Hard to fire Person A for something done by Person B even if B is the spouse of your employee A.

    About all you can do is enact and enforce a "no visitors" rule, but you'd have to enforce that for the spouses of all other staff, etc. Or maybe a "no adult discussions in presence of children" rule.

    Alternately, look for actual cause to fire her, document everything, give her the required number of warnings and counseling sessions (talkings-to).

    And always be wary of retaliation.

  • ||

    No, you really can't but if Person B makes it nasty enough, I can do what I want in the interest of protecting the business.

    We have the retaliation bit covered.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    You say, "Please shut your mouth before you endanger your wife's employment."

  • Paul.||

    I feel cheated by this story, Rufus. Did you vote for Harper or not?!!

  • ||

    Of course I did - twice. After voting for Chretien and the Liberals and watching them act stupidly, it was really time to switch back to the Tories. Most Canadians like me, who are neither hard core Liberal or Tory, swing both ways depending on the candidates.

    The problem is, as questionable Harper can be, he's miles better than what the other two parties are pimping in Drama Boy Trudeau and Shoot ask questions later Mulcair. Neither of those two have remotely the political and intellectual smarts of Harper.

  • ||

    The main criticism about Harper is - aside from being thoroughly anti-Kyoto, steadfast in his support of Israel, his spending policies and lack of loyalty - is the charge he's 'dictatorial'.

    Which is bizarre given how pretty iron fisted Pierre Trudeau was and one of his successors in Jean Chretien. Funny how everyone forgets when Liberals act that way. Never mind it's kind of how the PMO has functioned particularly since the 1960.

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Frie.....0771080786

  • Paul.||

    is the charge he's 'dictatorial'.

    Which is bizarre given how pretty iron fisted Pierre Trudeau was and one of his successors in Jean Chretien

    In American politics, if you're a lefty, the media refers to this trait as being "committed" or "passionate".

    If you're conservative... at some point the Hitler comparisons start rolling.

  • Xeones||

    You know who else swung both ways?

  • WTF||

    Tommy Dorsey?

  • WTF||

    Mickey Mantle?

  • The Blind Gawd Luvia||

    Peter Noone?

  • bacon-magic||

    Most Canadians?

  • Invisible Finger||

    Robin Williams?

  • Poppa Kilo||

    Your mother?
    [posted per Reason Style Guide requirement]

  • ||

    transgressed the rules of life

    Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?

    Conan: Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    It seems like the most damning part of this is that all of the accusers appear to have known each other. All of the early media accounts I saw made it seem as if they were independent accusations, but if they all were in the same social circle there's no reason at all they couldn't have had something against Nungesser and tried to engage in a group vendetta.

    The Jezebel article (showing the high quality journalism for which they are known) actually makes it appear that they were unknown to each other. From that article:

    "But after Sulkowicz learned about two other women Nungesser had allegedly sexually assaulted, she decided to press forward, bringing charges against him before her college's disciplinary board. Nungesser was found "not responsible." He'd earlier been found "responsible" for another sexual assault, but had appealed and won after the woman grew tired of fighting the proceedings. So he was allowed to remain on campus."

    So those 'two other women' were apparently just random women Sulkowicz happened to hear about. The problem is, this article makes it seem that Adam knew "Natalie" and that Adam knew Sulkowicz. In that case, these weren't people who just learned about each others' assaults, they were people who were previously familiar with one another. That drastically changes the story, doesn't it?

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    The Jezebel article also blatantly lies about what Cathy Young has argued in the past. Here's what they say about Young:

    "Here's Cathy Young using Rolling Stone's now-discredited article as a jumping off point to claim, basically, that most rape isn't real."

    Here's what Young actually says in the article in question:

    "And while the stories told by students are often compelling, it is important to remember that they are personal narratives which may or may not be factual. Only last June, Emily Renda, a UVA graduate and activist who now works at the school, included Jackie’s story—under the pseudonym “Jenna”—in her testimony before a Senate committee.

    Of course this is not to suggest that most such accounts are fabricated; but they are also filtered through subjective experience, memory, and personal bias."

    Gee - that sure does sound like Cathy Young is in no way saying what Jezebel claims she's saying.

  • SugarFree||

    Jezebel (and all of Gawker, really) are so used to not having to answer to their lies, they just lie constantly. It's the Hillary Clinton of web media.

  • ||

    That "basically" is in there for a reason.

  • Hey Nikki!||

    Cathy Young isn't basic!

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    She is FORTRAN?

  • This Machine||

    I'd say she's a real PERL.

  • Pan Zagloba||

    I C what you did there.

  • ||

    I can't wait for the SQL

  • ||

    That's exactly right. I hope that someday they caught in one of their lies and get sued out of their pants.

  • ||

    I read that article and it was pathetic that they took it upon themselves to misrepresent Cathy Young's point of view. I can understand being devoted to your ideology but common sense would dictate that when you except a lie in order to further your ideology then that's when you lose all credibility.

  • SugarFree||

    You can't lose what you never had.

  • Madisonian||

    Exactly. How coincidental that all of the accusers are Sulkowicz's friends. Such a serial groper should have found some victim not in her circle. It is also amazing how all of them came up with these complaints, years after the assaults, once he was cleared in her case.

    Ex-girlfriend "He was insensitive as a boyfriend."
    Gossip who lost friendship meddling in that relationship "Oh yeah, 3 years ago he groped me, too. He is a secret homosexual, as well as serial groper."
    Coed frat friend of all "yep he tried to kiss me when drunk, forgot to mention it for a year."

    Convenient how none mentioned this until Sulkowicz's charge didn't stick at the clown court run by the school.

  • ||

    Waaay back in the early 90s when I was in college, my girlfriend - now wife- was part of a "Woman's Group." It was generally a low-key affair until a new woman joined. She and her husband began to take it over... they seemed friendly enough. We had them over for dinner and began to hang out with them a lot.

    But it was eventually decided that I was "one of the enemy" and they tried to pry away my girlfriend, telling her that I was too masculine, wanted to date other women (I made a positive comment about another woman's looks), and she would be better off without me.

    Needless to say my girlfriend was made of stronger stuff and told 'em to fuck off. She left the group over this.

  • Paul.||

    I was too masculine, wanted to date other women (I made a positive comment about another woman's looks), and she would be better off without me.

    All of can be 100% true and you'd still be a fine specimen of a human being and a good husband.

  • WTF||

    They also disapproved of his roaming the wastelands in search of guzzoline.

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    Dealbreaker, right there.

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    Dealbreaker, right there.

  • ||

    who claimed he had grabbed her and tried to kiss her at a party over a year earlier

    uh... like this never happens at drunken parties. ?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I recall a particular party where a rather drunken participant (not myself) whipped it out and proceeded to tell his girlfriend how much he loved her just before puking on his own penis.

  • Viscount Irish, Slayer of Huns||

    "I recall a particular party where a rather drunken participant (not myself) whipped it out and proceeded to tell his girlfriend how much he loved her just before puking on his own penis."

    This is amazing. I assume they're still together because what lady would ever break up with this kind of catch?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Just to make it funnier, he was the son of an Irish cop who always announced his father's profession before telling you how much you didn't know.

  • ||

    Wait a second...did this guy love listening to the Smiths by any chance?

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Trying to remember if he did, but it's quite likely.

  • ||

    Dude, I think I knew that guy. And the fucker still owes me $20!

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    And the fucker still owes me $20!

    Well his dad's a cop, so good luck with that.

  • Madisonian||

    Know about cops, crime, drinking?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It appears very much like women (and apparently men) completely lose agency in the presence of Nungesser. If they aren't powerless to resist when he's giving them an old fashioned, they're frightened to let on that they know what he did to them was assault. He's pretty diabolical, if you don't think about it too hard.

  • buybuydandavis||

    He must have vampire hypno eyes.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Like anyone should take anything Jezebel writes seriously after Merlan made such a fool of herself mocking Robby on the UVa case. Like most Gawker blogs, it's filled with the dregs of J-school grads looking to make a name for themselves by fomenting mobs and enabling borderline personality cases via click-bait. It's Retard Central for women and men hot to make society pay for their daddy issues.

  • the other Jim||

    Heh, I just got an image of a huge call center..."Hello, Retard Central, this is Tony, how may I direct your call...?"

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I like to think I am a pretty good judge of people. I cannot imagine ever having said anything other than "hello" or "goodbye" to ANY of the protagonists in this grotesque shitshow.

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    Protagonists?

  • Drake||

    what she says was a terrifyingly violent rape

    Did Sulkowicz ever describe a terrifyingly violent rape? Even if I believed her story (which I don't), it sounded more like they were in the sack and he gave something new a try. She didn't like it so he stopped. Then, months later, she got mad and decided to ruin his life.

  • WTF||

    I believe she claimed he choked and punched her in the process of forcing anal on her. After which she sent him booty call texts and love notes for months.

  • Drake||

    Which part was her favorite?

  • John C. Randolph||

    Which totally makes sense, since any girl would crave attention from someone who had raped her. That IS what she wants us to believe, right?

    -jcr

  • ||

    Before I left for college my Mom sat me down and gave me some advice when it came to sex on campus.

    1. If a woman says no, then she means no. Walk away.
    2. if she's wasted, put it back in your pants and go to bed.
    3. Don't bang a crazy woman.

  • ||

    Your mom is pretty smart. What's her phone number?

  • ||

    I would give it to you but my gun owning stepdad would not be happy.

  • ||

    Don't you worry about that part. Dealing with that is my specialty.

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    Yeah, Epi is pretty elusive. Well, that and my old man is not quite the shot he used to be, dammit.

  • Xeones||

    Ed gonna get a NEW stepdaddy tonight!

  • ||

    Is that you, Son????

  • R C Dean||

    The great thing is that Columbia, by publicly announcing that nobody could bring large objects to graduation, and then allowing Emma to do exactly that, has essentially thrown away any defense they might have to Nungesser's lawsuit, which is based on Columbia facilitating her harassment of him.

    De. Licious.

  • Swiss Servator, Quelle frisch||

    I would give rather a lot to be present at some of the depositions in that case...

  • ||

    Coincidentally, I brought a large object to MY graduation.

  • Invisible Finger||

    They could say "By large object we meant anything larger than a mattress."

  • ||

    undergrads, today's word is felony conspiracy in the 2nd degree with a minimum of 2-5.

  • ||

    my stepmother just purchased a nearly new Acura RL by working part-time from a home pc....... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.www.netjob80.com

  • ||

    She is an angel and I still believe her.

    Most importantly, I still would.

  • e.eileen||

    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...
    www.gowork247.com

  • This Machine||

    Come on, Eilieen. How gullible do you think I am?

  • ||

    +1 Dexy

  • ||

  • SugarFree||

    I'm thinking they ditched them when the cops showed up.

  • Marshall Gill||

    At a restaurant? They found a couple of dozen silverware place settings. Either 50 or 35, depending on whether or not they counted spoons as weapons.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Add a zero. 500 or 350 place settings.

  • SugarFree||

    This country needs to have a serious conversation about fork control.

  • ||

    I wonder if that is accurate (I am sure it is not) and if it is what they are considering weapons. Knives, multi-tools, impure thoughts?

  • Marshall Gill||

    No one NEEDS four tines!

  • ||

    Could also be plants. The cops really have a hardon for that restaurant now since they refused a "reasonable request" to stop hosting biker night.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Crusty Juggler,

    What the hell is going on?


    Maybe the bikers got the message wrong when they were told it was a potluck meeting.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Weapon = knife or fork. Finding 1000 knives at a restaurant is not news.

    Hidden = in a drawer.

    Government employees = drama queen liars.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Knives and forks?

  • ||

    Serious question: the word "slut" is being tossed around and argued over. Could someone actually define it?

  • tarran||

    It has two usages:

    Usage 1: (relating to a person whom the speaker is attracted to) Woman having sex with n people who are not the speaker, where n ≥ 0

    Usage 2: (relating to a person whom the speaker is not attracted to) Woman having sex with n people who are not the speaker, where n ≥ 2

  • GILMORE||

    Your mom

  • ||

    Wait, Epi and I are brothers?

  • ||

    I think that would technically make him your father-brother.

  • ||

    Only if he was engaging in incest.

    Wait... yeah, you're likely correct.

  • ||

  • ||

    More OT: Jim Harbaugh and the University of Michigan hate cosmotarians:

  • Sevo||

    Jim Harbaugh hates the game clock, too.

  • Anthony555||

    This story is of concern. A well known and respected institution is graduating individuals who carry out vendettas and lie in the name of political correctness. Not to say that Columbia has the market corned on that.

    Come to think of it, these are the people that end up in civil service and elected positions.

  • Drake||

    Respected?

    Uh, no. Not any more.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "A well known and respected institution is graduating individuals who carry out vendettas and lie in the name of political correctness."

    Vocational training for the Progressive Theocracy. IRS. Department of "Justice". EEOC. EPA.

  • OldMexican||

    Her activism was also lauded (with no mention of her name) by two commencement speakers, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power.


    Put your minds at ease especially all of you who were waking up at night in cold sweats because of the nagging and lingering question if politics are involved in this whole "rapey culture" circus.

    Far from showing avoidance of Nungesser, it [the Facebook record] showed Adam seeking him out, complaining that "our friendship has been negatively affected" by Nungesser's relationship problems and that "we're less close/you're preferring it that way."


    The very first conclusion I would draw from a Facebook message like that from a 'friend' is that he's either gay with a crush, or gay and delusional. Either way, it was probably better for Nungesser to avoid contact with that fruitcake and to attempt the first transatlantic flight in The White Bird. Oh, wait, that was Charles Nungesser...

  • buybuydandavis||

    When are these accusers who can't meet a "preponderance of the evidence" standard going to be prosecuted in turn for slander and malicious prosecution by the same "preponderance of the evidence" standard?

    Probably when the accuser isn't one of the privileged classes of the Progressive Theocracy.

  • julieejulia748||

    Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income... You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection... Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up... You can have your first check by the end of this week...............

    http://www.Jobsyelp.com

  • Arisuka||

    According to feminsts, women wouldn't possibly get together and collude against one person they have a vendetta against, yet they can somehow say with a straight face that ALL MEN have gotten together under the banner of "The Patriarchy" and colluded to prevent women to have jobs, fun or anything they want to do outside of having kids and keeping up the house.

  • ||

    I wouldn't waste any more print time on this story-it more than likely is the one instant of fame these people will ever get! Obviously, not many people graduating from this school are prepared to live their own lives in this world-and they are actually going to pay for a crap "education".

  • Madisonian||

    No chance that Sulkowicz might roll this into a run for Congress, like Fluke did? Perhaps she will be luckier, and find just the right seat.

  • XM||

    This gave me some hope.

    http://jezebel.com/posters-on-.....1705750162

    I'm guessing that in addition to feeling betrayed by a feminist icon who turned out to be a complete fraud, the students also resented the special treatment she got.

    There's zero creativity and thought in carrying around a mattress. The item doesn't even make sense in the context of the thesis, because most people will associate mattresses with sleep and comfort. And yet the school allowed her use it as a thesis and didn't stop her from dragging the mattress along to the graduation.

    I had to turn in almost 50 pages of paper for my thesis. It's ridiculous, really,

  • ebola131||

    I'm of the bent that if you are falsely accused of rape, you're owed one by the accuser.
    III/0317

  • John Galt||

    Consensual sexer changes mind now desires help getting police to side with her in charging boyfriend with rape. Will someone please help!

  • HalJordan||

    Fascinating article about the mind states of wealthy college kids. I hate how often as libertarians we are forced to stand up for a holes. I think this guy is probably not a rapist but probably is a giant dbag if this many people are out to get him for whatever personal reasons. I would probably hate every single person involved in this story in real life. Still, I guess it's important as libertarians we stand up for this guy or whatever. Honestly though, I think I care more about the drama then whatever happens in this situation to anybody. This is just my version of a soap opera or reality tv show. In the grand scheme of things it aint that important, but it's a fun diversion.

  • Akira||

    I'd have to disagree with your assessment that it's not important.

    This whole "campus rape" hubbub shows that SJWs have a goal: to twist the justice system so that a woman's word is all that is necessary to get a man convicted of rape. This backwards method of justice may be localized to college campuses for the time being. But it's still doing damage there (getting men expelled, branded as a rapist for life, etc.) and plus, this "guilty until proven innocent" attitude could spill over into the rest of our justice system.

    If this witch hunt is not nipped in the bud, it will get out of control.

  • HalJordan||

    True, I guess I was kind of an a hole to girls at that age too, and I do recall my favorite comedian Patrice Oneal having a good story about being falsely accused of rape, so I guess it is pretty important. Not the most important thing, but yes I guess I shouldn't be dismissive.

  • Win Bear||

    Maybe we should simply acknowledge that Columbia is a shitty university and move on?

  • Warrenz||

    What campus culture today can agree upon is that Nungesser is a Straight White Male and therefore automatically cannot be a victim - and moreover is already a victimizer simply by existing. In the competition to be a victim, with the biggest victim having the most power, straight white males score zero points. Far from disempowering, Victimhood is empowering now. Being a victim of rape is worth a lot of points in this power contest - particularly if the rapist is a straight white male.

  • Madisonian||

    Is he straight? Adam claims that three years prior he groped him. We have to take Adam's word at face value too, no?

  • ClassicLib-NeverProg||

    As a closeted gay male Adam gets at least a few victim diversity merits. Seriously, 3 minutes to realize a HJ was unwelcome? GTFOH.

  • z0phi3l||

    Best/worst part of this is that she has made herself unemployable to all but the most leftist organization. Too bad she will claim sexism for this instead of growing up and admitting she screwed up, has a leftist ever apologized for their lies?

  • bassjoe||

    My wife is pissed at these incidents. Not because a rapist is going free but because these stories -- where the allegations of misconduct are likely fabricated -- make it harder for legitimate allegations of rape and discrimination to be taken seriously.

    The modern feminist movement has taken the victimhood too far. There will be a backlash; indeed, one is already brewing. The vast vast majority of men are not predators, rapists or abusers and resent that they are just assumes to be dangerous. They and the women who love them can end these witch hunts through political pressure; the danger is that the anger about these false accusations will make it difficult for actual victims to come forward and get justice.

    And the feminists would be to blame for that eventuality.

  • bassjoe||

    To be clear, my wife and I don't think this guy is a rapist.

  • robert30255||

    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...
    www.gowork247.com

  • robert30255||

    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...
    www.gowork247.com

  • Robert Riversong||

    The Emma "The Mattress" Sulkowicz celebrity story may be the most salacious false campus rape allegation of all time, even surpassing the Duke Lacrosse Team scandal and the Rolling Stone fiasco for the rape fable with the most traction. See A Model of Campus Gender-Based Harassment: The Columbia University “Mattress” Story .

  • iinez13||

    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...
    www.jobnet10.com

  • ccharles608||

    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...
    www.jobnet10.com

  • NicholasStix||

    "Nungesser may have been the target of a group vendetta."

    At this point, it sounds more like a criminal conspiracy to violate his rights.

    Nicholas Stix, Uncensored

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online