Surprise, surprise! "Mattress Girl" was (very likely) not raped after all.

[zorq]

Here is the question. This person wronged her terribly. She doesn't report it to the Police?

Is her Major the proper venue to deal with a crime? This ignores the mind numbing realization this counted as "art". This is where Columbia could be culpable. They allowed her to create a venue for a rather public calling out (we don't even allow calling out at this web board) regarding a serious crime, that seems to be big enough to warrant hauling a mattress around for months (?) but not going to the police? Shouldn't the school have encouraged another tact here?

I won't fault her for not reporting a rape, many women choose not to report rapes.

However, those reasons fly out the window when she makes a spectacle of the situation like this one has. If you want justice go to the cops. The law quite correctly frowns upon self-help solutions.

She DID go to the authorities later and they didn't help her. That's when she decided to take matters into her own hands. Her behavior is completely understandable and plausible as the behavior of a woman who has been raped.

 

[RavenSky]

Excellent post, I snipped for brevity but all of it is productive and interesting point for discussion.

Are people advocating a gag-order such that rape victims may not accuse anyone publicly? A gag order with financial penalties? Incarceration?
Do they also advocate that this be applied to slut-shamers? Does that include people who post on a message board that the victim is a liar?

Here is the question. This person wronged her terribly. She doesn't report it to the Police?

Is her Major the proper venue to deal with a crime? This ignores the mind numbing realization this counted as "art". This is where Columbia could be culpable. They allowed her to create a venue for a rather public calling out (we don't even allow calling out at this web board) regarding a serious crime, that seems to be big enough to warrant hauling a mattress around for months (?) but not going to the police? Shouldn't the school have encouraged another tact here?

She did report it to the police. The point of her performance art is that she maintains police mishandled her case and declined to investigate it properly. Maybe she is correct or incorrect in her judgement of how police handled her case, but it is incorrect to think that she chose this venue instead of the police.

Here is the irony though. It appears to be your position that she should not be allowed to do this performance piece about what she says was a violent rape unless she has reported the incident to the police. Yet it is because she reported the incident to the university and to police that we all know his name.

His actual name is not part of the performance piece itself.

So let's assume that she was violently raped on campus but never reported it to anyone, never told anyone who raped her, but still does the performance piece. What is your position in that hypothetical?

 

[RavenSky]

What if her art were "calling out" a crime from her childhood? If she created a performance art about her own childhood abuse to shine a light on the subject? Should that be shut down as well?

Well, there's a huge difference between "I am a rape victim and I want to call attention to the problem of getting convictions for this type of crime" and "this guy here is a rapist". The first one is fine. The second is not.

The first part is what her performance piece was about.

 

[Arctish]

I want to throw up.

These threads about Derec's crusade for the falsely accused of rape are always interesting reads for me. On the one hand, he makes some very good points, which often get dismissed with hostility and insults against him instead of logic or reason. But on the other hand, he brings the same cases up over and over and over and just doesn't seem to want to move on to another topic. Very tenacious. Borderline obsessed.

He also makes specious points that merit the derision and dismissal they receive, but he keeps repeating them because they support his usual theme of lying sluts who falsely accuse men of wrongdoing. For example, his claim Sulkowicz enjoys anal sex is based on a quote-mine of an idiom on a par with "blow me down" or "gag me with a spoon", or "fuck me running". Derec is pretending, or at the very least assuming, it was a genuine indication Sulkowicz wanted anal sex the night Nungesser flipped her over and penetrated her anus.

Derec, please post the date and context in which Sulkowicz's use of the phrase "fuck me in the butt" occurred before you make any more claims about Sulkowicz's desire for anal sex that night, or any night.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are her communications that are far more suggestive of a woman mad because she didn't get the man she wanted than of a rape victim.

So you think that those offer her a motive to try to destroy this man's life. On the other hand there are two other women who have accused the man of sexually assaulting them. Neither of these things tell us if there was actually a rape.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

THERE IS NO CLARITY.

Two others that she pushed into making reports--and those reports didn't constitute rape anyway.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing like quotes without context.

But it's a lawsuit. You don't go making claims in a lawsuit filing that won't stand up to scrutiny. Thus we can be pretty sure this isn't taken out of context.

We can't assume that at all. Have you ever met a lawyer?

Do you not realize that putting things in a lawsuit that you don't have evidence for is asking for sanctions? Not to mention asking for an award of attorney's fees to the other side?

Also, put something like that in your filing and what happens when they put you on the witness stand and make you read the context? Can you say "lose"?

While the context might not be totally clear-cut it's certainly not going to favor her.

- - - Updated - - -

I won't fault her for not reporting a rape, many women choose not to report rapes.

However, those reasons fly out the window when she makes a spectacle of the situation like this one has. If you want justice go to the cops. The law quite correctly frowns upon self-help solutions.

She DID go to the authorities later and they didn't help her. That's when she decided to take matters into her own hands. Her behavior is completely understandable and plausible as the behavior of a woman who has been raped.

Later, when there's no chance of proving it true or false.

And when she's mad about not getting him. Ever hear the expression "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

She did report it to the police. The point of her performance art is that she maintains police mishandled her case and declined to investigate it properly. Maybe she is correct or incorrect in her judgement of how police handled her case, but it is incorrect to think that she chose this venue instead of the police.

Investigate what? Barring unusual circumstances the proper police response to a late-filed rape case is the circular file. Don't waste police time investigating issues with no hope of a conviction.

Here is the irony though. It appears to be your position that she should not be allowed to do this performance piece about what she says was a violent rape unless she has reported the incident to the police. Yet it is because she reported the incident to the university and to police that we all know his name.

She reported it after the fact, they didn't believe her. I don't believe her, either.

You're falling into the old trap of assuming the woman never lies about rape.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here is the question. This person wronged her terribly. She doesn't report it to the Police?

Is her Major the proper venue to deal with a crime? This ignores the mind numbing realization this counted as "art". This is where Columbia could be culpable. They allowed her to create a venue for a rather public calling out (we don't even allow calling out at this web board) regarding a serious crime, that seems to be big enough to warrant hauling a mattress around for months (?) but not going to the police? Shouldn't the school have encouraged another tact here?

She did report it to the police. The point of her performance art is that she maintains police mishandled her case and declined to investigate it properly. Maybe she is correct or incorrect in her judgement of how police handled her case, but it is incorrect to think that she chose this venue instead of the police.

Alright.

His actual name is not part of the performance piece itself.

Isn't this a child's attempt to find a loophole?

So let's assume that she was violently raped on campus but never reported it to anyone, never told anyone who raped her, but still does the performance piece. What is your position in that hypothetical?

This is a fictional story. The resemblance of any characters or events to actual events is purely coincidental. Why do you think that is shown in some TV dramas?

All that said, she did report it to the police, albeit very late. So she at least did put it into a proper venue. That said, I still don't see what she is doing is actually "art". I find that part offensive. Carrying a mattress?! Seriously?!

- - - Updated - - -

Investigate what? Barring unusual circumstances the proper police response to a late-filed rape case is the circular file. Don't waste police time investigating issues with no hope of a conviction.

Here is the irony though. It appears to be your position that she should not be allowed to do this performance piece about what she says was a violent rape unless she has reported the incident to the police. Yet it is because she reported the incident to the university and to police that we all know his name.

She reported it after the fact, they didn't believe her. I don't believe her, either.

You're falling into the old trap of assuming the woman never lies about rape.

Are we in a seance. You seem to be channeling Derec.

 

[bilby]

But it's a lawsuit. You don't go making claims in a lawsuit filing that won't stand up to scrutiny. Thus we can be pretty sure this isn't taken out of context.

I find your lack of lack of faith ... disturbing.

 

[zorq]

So you think that those offer her a motive to try to destroy this man's life. On the other hand there are two other women who have accused the man of sexually assaulting them. Neither of these things tell us if there was actually a rape.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

THERE IS NO CLARITY.

Two others that she pushed into making reports--and those reports didn't constitute rape anyway.

Do you have evidence those reports were false or coerced?
No... I didn't think so.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE!
THERE IS NO CLARITY!

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing like quotes without context.

But it's a lawsuit. You don't go making claims in a lawsuit filing that won't stand up to scrutiny. Thus we can be pretty sure this isn't taken out of context.

We can't assume that at all. Have you ever met a lawyer?

Do you not realize that putting things in a lawsuit that you don't have evidence for is asking for sanctions? Not to mention asking for an award of attorney's fees to the other side?

Also, put something like that in your filing and what happens when they put you on the witness stand and make you read the context? Can you say "lose"?

While the context might not be totally clear-cut it's certainly not going to favor her.

- - - Updated - - -

As long as we are throwing around useless quotations, have you heard the expression "A lawyer will do anything to win a case. Sometimes he will even tell the truth."

Until you can show me some context for that quote I see NO reason as to why we should assume she intended it literally or seriously. The guy's response to the quote in question is confusing to me without the missing context.

I won't fault her for not reporting a rape, many women choose not to report rapes.

However, those reasons fly out the window when she makes a spectacle of the situation like this one has. If you want justice go to the cops. The law quite correctly frowns upon self-help solutions.

She DID go to the authorities later and they didn't help her. That's when she decided to take matters into her own hands. Her behavior is completely understandable and plausible as the behavior of a woman who has been raped.

Later, when there's no chance of proving it true or false.

And when she's mad about not getting him. Ever hear the expression "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"?

Well I guess if a crime isn't reported right away it must have never happened at all. Right? And it is impossible to be raped by someone you love and trust, Right?

Are you suggesting that it should be illegal to tell the public that individuals in their vicinity are criminals even if they haven't been proven to be criminals in a court of law?

 

[DrZoidberg]

True but mere possibility she was raped is not enough. Not even close.

Whether or not she likes it up the ass is completely irrelevant.

Then perhaps she should not have lied about not talking to Paul about having anal sex with him. Nothing wrong with liking anal, but lying about talking about doing anal makes everything she says less trustworthy.

There´s a lot of shame surrounding sex and sexuality. Lying about our sexual tastes when we have the public's attention is to be expected. So no. It has no impact at all on her trustworthiness.

Lying about it make no difference. It´s nobody else´s business what kind of sex she likes. It has no relevance. Which is perhaps why she lied about it?

She lied about things relevant to her rape claim. Paul claims anal sex was consensual and that is bolstered by them talking about it. Her lying about it weakens her case since if she is willing to lie about that she might be lying about other things as well.

She might have been up for anal sex that moment when she asked him about it. Or perhaps when they had sex she changed her mind about it. Or maybe she just wrote she likes anal sex, when she doesn´t, just to get him interested. Crazier things have happened.

No,

You don't believe in requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt for rape claims? You don't believe in presumption of innocence?

I believe our legal system is ill equipped to deal with rape cases.

because real rape victims are traumatised and people who are traumatised behave irrationally.

So we should just punish men accused of rape with no regard to pesky things like evidence?

They do incredibly bizarre things.

Like lie about being raped.

So nothing they say or do will prove shit in court.

If you can't prove guilt you must acquit. Anything else is unworthy of the term "justice".

The most common thing for rape victims to do is to lie to themselves about the rape. The commonly manage to convince themselves that they were in on it. And blame themselves for being sad about it. Then when the trauma of the event subsides, they can finally come to admit to themselves what happened. It´s standard behaviour for rape victims. So they may say or do things that might make it seem like they weren´t really raped, when they were. For example, like telling someone they weren´t raped.

A very close friend of mine was a victim of a very brutal rape. I was the one who held her hand through the entire process and finding her therapy and all of that. She couldn´t bring herself to report the rape because she was too traumatised. I even got a written confession from the rapist. So it wouldn´t have been hard for her to press charges. She still couldn´t bring herself to do it. The rape survivor staff were very helpful. They taught me a lot about how this stuff works. Or doesn´t.

Nothing about their character proves anything. Nothing about their sexual tastes or behaviours prove anything.

"Sexual tastes" are irrelevant in themselves but making false statements as part of your allegation is very much relevant. Allegedly being "traumatized" is not a good excuse here, especially since it presumes the very thing in question (whether or not she was actually raped).

Let´s agree to disagree.

 

[RavenSky]

Investigate what? Barring unusual circumstances the proper police response to a late-filed rape case is the circular file. Don't waste police time investigating issues with no hope of a conviction.

Here is the irony though. It appears to be your position that she should not be allowed to do this performance piece about what she says was a violent rape unless she has reported the incident to the police. Yet it is because she reported the incident to the university and to police that we all know his name.

She reported it after the fact, they didn't believe her. I don't believe her, either.

You're falling into the old trap of assuming the woman never lies about rape.

I haven't fallen into any such trap. I have very clearly and repeatedly stated that there is not enough evidence either way. I was simply pointing out that she did indeed file a police report so it is false to claim she didn't.

Moreover, unlike you, all of my posts in this thread have been neutral and only trying to explore how to find the balance between free speech vs defamation.

You, however, are still stuck in your same trap of assuming every report of rape is a lie which is what is ruining this thread for any sort of productive discussion.

 

[RavenSky]

She did report it to the police. The point of her performance art is that she maintains police mishandled her case and declined to investigate it properly. Maybe she is correct or incorrect in her judgement of how police handled her case, but it is incorrect to think that she chose this venue instead of the police.

Alright.

His actual name is not part of the performance piece itself.

Isn't this a child's attempt to find a loophole?

Are you employing a child's attempt to avoid an adult discussion?

I don't really care to spend anymore bandwidth debating whether he is a rapist or she is a liar. We are never going to know, but we all already know which side of the question everyone on this board will land.

I am trying to explore the wider questions brought up by his lawsuit, which is what the article in the OP was about. If you don't want to participate, don't. No skin off my nose. Oh wait, ignore that. Some people here might think I really want you to take skin off my nose.

That said, I still don't see what she is doing is actually "art". I find that part offensive. Carrying a mattress?! Seriously?!

I don't see it as "art" either, but apparently a lot of people did. She won all sorts of awards for the performance piece.

If it had not been extricably linked to a specific man, I do see the value of her performance piece as an activist protest, though.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Alright.

His actual name is not part of the performance piece itself.

Isn't this a child's attempt to find a loophole?

Are you employing a child's attempt to avoid an adult discussion?

No.

I don't really care to spend anymore bandwidth debating whether he is a rapist or she is a liar.

I'm not arguing that part at all. I was under the mistaken impression she had not involved the Police. I thought that much was clear and acknowledged in my post. I think this is about the lawsuit that was filed. And based on the information out there, I don't think there is much of a case to be had for the accused.

We are never going to know, but we all already know which side of the question everyone on this board will land.

The Police's? Was a shot fired?

I am trying to explore the wider questions brought up by his lawsuit, which is what the article in the OP was about. If you don't want to participate, don't. No skin off my nose. Oh wait, ignore that. Some people here might think I really want you to take skin off my nose.

This is what I was talking about. The problem I had with your question was that it was a bit of a pretend plea to alleged ignorance to defend carrying a mattress around. She does not include the guy's name, but people know what it is about. To plead that the act isn't the technical reason is really misleading and fooling itself.

That said, I still don't see what she is doing is actually "art". I find that part offensive. Carrying a mattress?! Seriously?!

I don't see it as "art" either, but apparently a lot of people did. She won all sorts of awards for the performance piece.

Yeah, art people are stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

But it's a lawsuit. You don't go making claims in a lawsuit filing that won't stand up to scrutiny. Thus we can be pretty sure this isn't taken out of context.

I find your lack of lack of faith ... disturbing.

Did Loren just say there is no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit?

 

[Arctish]

But it's a lawsuit. You don't go making claims in a lawsuit filing that won't stand up to scrutiny. Thus we can be pretty sure this isn't taken out of context.

I find your lack of lack of faith ... disturbing.

Did Loren just say there is no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit?

I think he's saying that every claim Orly Taitz made in her various lawsuits challenging Barack Obama's status as a natural born citizen of the US has withstood scrutiny, and we know this because if a claim couldn't withstand scrutiny, Orly Taitz wouldn't have made it part of the lawsuit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But it's a lawsuit. You don't go making claims in a lawsuit filing that won't stand up to scrutiny. Thus we can be pretty sure this isn't taken out of context.

I find your lack of lack of faith ... disturbing.

Did Loren just say there is no such thing as a frivolous lawsuit?

I think he's saying that every claim Orly Taitz made in her various lawsuits challenging Barack Obama's status as a natural born citizen of the US has withstood scrutiny.

And every malpractice suit out there as well. Let's not forget falls in Big Box stores.

 

[RavenSky]

I think this is about the lawsuit that was filed. And based on the information out there, I don't think there is much of a case to be had for the accused.

which "accused"? Her, him or Columbia?

I am trying to explore the wider questions brought up by his lawsuit, which is what the article in the OP was about. If you don't want to participate, don't. No skin off my nose. Oh wait, ignore that. Some people here might think I really want you to take skin off my nose.

This is what I was talking about. The problem I had with your question was that it was a bit of a pretend plea to alleged ignorance to defend carrying a mattress around. She does not include the guy's name, but people know what it is about. To plead that the act isn't the technical reason is really misleading and fooling itself.

It was not a "pretend plea". It was to question what the real issue is. I don't disagree that the art thesis is problematic BECAUSE everyone knows its about him.

But is it the art thesis itself the problem as some seem to believe? Or is it the fact that everyone knows the art thesis was about him? That's why I keep asking the hypotheticals - if she had done this exact same performance art piece without his name having ever been public, would the same people have the same objections? Well, aside from the following:

That said, I still don't see what she is doing is actually "art". I find that part offensive. Carrying a mattress?! Seriously?!

I don't see it as "art" either, but apparently a lot of people did. She won all sorts of awards for the performance piece.

Yeah, art people are stupid.

I also find it problematic that he is suing Columbia, not her. If this case was all about defamation, then the proper target of the lawsuit should be her. (I think it is about getting money from the deepest pockets.) How is suing Columbia for not violating her right to free speech or forbidding her choice of thesis project addressing what he claims is defamation of his character? IF there was any such defamation, it came when she accused him of rape to the university and to the police.

 

[Derec]

I haven't fallen into any such trap. I have very clearly and repeatedly stated that there is not enough evidence either way. I was simply pointing out that she did indeed file a police report so it is false to claim she didn't.

There wasn't enough evidence either way when we discussed this case last year. Now, with the revelation of her lying about suggesting anal sex and her clingy messages like "wanna see yoyououoyou" and "I love you Paul. Where are you?!?!?!?!" sent after the night in question, it is now much more likely that this was a case of "love to hated turned" and "woman scorned" than an actual rape. Which means that Columbia should expel her, but of course that would not be politically correct.

You, however, are still stuck in your same trap of assuming every report of rape is a lie which is what is ruining this thread for any sort of productive discussion.

Every report of rape is not a lie. This one most likely is.

 

[Derec]

There´s a lot of shame surrounding sex and sexuality. Lying about our sexual tastes when we have the public's attention is to be expected. So no. It has no impact at all on her trustworthiness.

It has everything to do with her trustworthiness. She lied about an aspect of her allegation and the case was purely "he said she said". Or more accurately "he said she lied".

She might have been up for anal sex that moment when she asked him about it. Or perhaps when they had sex she changed her mind about it. Or maybe she just wrote she likes anal sex, when she doesn´t, just to get him interested. Crazier things have happened.

All of these things are possible, of course. That doesn't make them probable. And all were things she could have said, whether true or false, when asked about it. Yet she chose to lie about not suggesting anal at all, which was quickly found to be not true.

I believe our legal system is ill equipped to deal with rape cases.

You are dodging the question. In what way do you think "our legal system is ill equipped to deal with rape cases"? Because it gives the accused due process and presumption of innocence? Because proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required to convict? Something else?
And what legal system would you prefer instead? One where women are automatically believed even when they are caught in a lie? Or even better, not asked any tough questions so they are not in danger of trapping themselves in lies and inconsistencies when they falsely accuse somebody of rape?

The most common thing for rape victims to do is to lie to themselves about the rape.

Lying to themselves is no problem. But when they start to lie to police and other authorities it becomes a big problem for their credibility.

The commonly manage to convince themselves that they were in on it. And blame themselves for being sad about it. Then when the trauma of the event subsides, they can finally come to admit to themselves what happened. It´s standard behaviour for rape victims. So they may say or do things that might make it seem like they weren´t really raped, when they were. For example, like telling someone they weren´t raped.

That' quite convenient. Whatever a woman says or does we must believe her because trauma. And patriarchy.

A very close friend of mine was a victim of a very brutal rape. I was the one who held her hand through the entire process and finding her therapy and all of that. She couldn´t bring herself to report the rape because she was too traumatised. I even got a written confession from the rapist. So it wouldn´t have been hard for her to press charges. She still couldn´t bring herself to do it. The rape survivor staff were very helpful. They taught me a lot about how this stuff works. Or doesn´t.

Just because she might have really been raped doesn't mean every woman who cries rape is telling the truth. That's why strong protections of the accused are important, both in criminal justice system and during campus tribunals. Unfortunately protections for men in the latter have been dismantled by the Obama decree from 2011.
You on the other hand want men accused of rape punished without evidence just because you know a rape victim. That is very dangerous road you want to take US down!

Let´s agree to disagree.

I hope everybody else disagrees with you. For the sake of the rule of law in this country.

 

[Derec]

Well I guess if a crime isn't reported right away it must have never happened at all. Right?

It makes it much harder to prove if something did happen. It also make it much easier to explain away the lack of evidence if nothing happened. So waiting to report a crime is not in the best interest of a real victim, but is in the best (perceived) interest of a false accuser.

And it is impossible to be raped by someone you love and trust, Right?

They tend not to remain loved and trusted after the rape.
Also what is this obsession with "impossible" in these cases. The question is not whether it is possible that she is telling the truth but rather how likely it is given the scant evidence.

Are you suggesting that it should be illegal to tell the public that individuals in their vicinity are criminals even if they haven't been proven to be criminals in a court of law?

Saying that somebody is a criminal without evidence is defamation.

 

[Derec]

Are we in a seance. You seem to be channeling Derec.

I'm not dead yet!