Daniel Friedman on X - "Governor Hochul recognizes that the unpleasant incident at Cornell probably didn’t meet a definition of rape under New York Law. As defined in New York law, a person who has voluntarily consumed alcohol and drugs can still consent to sexual activity if they are conscious and able to speak. There is significant evidence, including the complainant’s own statements, that indicated Jane Doe in the Cornell incident verbally consented to the sex acts that occurred in the Chi Phi house, and that she actively participated in them, and that she only began to perceive these acts as nonconsensual weeks later when the fraternity’s president disinvited her from a Halloween party at the frat house that she badly wanted to attend. The only argument that these acts were nonetheless rape is if the woman’s apparent consent was invalid due to her intoxication. The law in New York is clear on the question: It was not. Governor Hochul therefore wants to expand the law to recategorize a lot of sex that is currently noncriminal as serious felonies. Despite the fact that Governor Hochul, by arguing that the law in New York needs to change to encompass the events at Cornell, she is implicitly recognizing that those events likely do not meet the legal definition of a crime that can be prosecuted, she has removed the local district attorney for reaching a legal finding consistent with this analysis. She has appointed Attorney General Tish James to go to Ithaca and prosecute these men without regard for what the law says."
Daniel Friedman on X - "Governor Hochul continues to describe the standard for incapacitation under New York law as a “loophole.” New York law is clear. An intoxicated person can consent to sex unless they are incapacitated. Incapacitation occurs when someone is so unconsciousness or they lack the wherewithal to express their unwillingness to have sex. During the encounter at Cornell, Jane Doe was intoxicated. She was not incapacitated. According to Jane Doe’s sworn statement, she verbally expressed willingness to have a threesome with Matthew Ingalls and Jonathan Newell, and she actively participated in that sex act, performing oral sex on them. Without a doubt, her inhibitions were lowered and her judgment was impaired as a result of the drugs and alcohol she had consumed, but she was still able to act and be responsible for those actions. Why should we make a new law that absolves her of responsibility when she is drunk, and a new duty that makes everyone else responsible for her? Jane Doe decided to have sex. She verbally said she wanted to have sex. She actively participated in the sex. The sex was a thing she did, not a thing that was done to her. She was at no point in the encounter an inert or passive object upon which depredations were inflicted. People drink and sometimes do drugs because they want to have fun and party and hook up. Sometimes people later regret the things they do when drunk, but they are still responsible for their own behavior. The rule Governor Hochul wants to enact would take millions of encounters that are clearly consensual and dictate that the participants’ unambiguous manifestations of consent are invalid and those people are being raped. This means that all this sex is judged to be consensual not by what the participants felt and intend at the time, but by how they feel about each other at some later date. Specifically, a couple in a relationship could drink some wine together and then go to bed. This is a perfectly normal thing to do that is obviously not a crime. Under a rule where the unambiguous consent of an intoxicated person is invalid, this is rape. But it’s fine if everybody is okay with it the next morning, right? Well, suppose the couple has an acrimonious breakup two years later — well within the statute of limitations — and the woman recalls that she had consumed a significant amount of alcohol and then had sex with her ex on that date. She can go to the police and file a report about this event which meets the defined terms of a serious sex crime. This is now at the discretion of a prosecutor. This should obviously not be a crime! So why do you want to make it one? And this is not a mere hypothetical. Universities whose disciplinary policies define rape expansively deal with thousands of complaints emerging out of facts like these each year. And Hochul’s proposed rule will be arbitrarily applied. When Jane Doe arrived at the frat house, Ingalls and Newell had already been consuming ketamine and alcohol and were extremely impaired — more intoxicated than she was; she had not yet taken any drugs. When Ingalls proposed the threesome to Doe, under the standard Governor Hochul seeks to enact, he was unable to consent to it. During that threesome, according to Doe’s sworn statement, Ingalls was struggling to remain conscious, and eventually passed out. Newell had to stop because he was convulsing with dry heaves. If intoxication invalidates consent to participate in a sex act, they couldn’t consent either. In fact, Ingalls may at some point have been unconscious or semiconscious and therefore incapacitated under existing New York law while Jane Doe was performing sex acts on him. But nobody seriously thinks we should prosecute Doe for raping Ingalls and Newell. Why do we suppose that Ingalls and Newell had agency and Doe did not? This is dumb political grandstanding. Hochul should be embarrassed, and if you are a New York resident, you should vote for Blakeman."
Misandrists are claiming if both are drunk the man is still the rapist because the woman is more vulnerable/passive. Of course.
Bad Hombre on X - "The district attorney who refused to prosecute the Cornell 7 hoax:
-is not just a lifelong Democrat, but a member of the far-left of his party, supporting policies like cashless bail.
- has prosecuted over a dozen rape and sexual assault cases.
- is currently prosecuting rape and sexual assault cases.
Yet, Kathy Hochul doesn’t have confidence in him because he, to his credit, did his job by the book and followed NY State law. Not only is Hochul neck-and-neck in her Governor’s race, but Leticia James is tied with her Republican opponent for AG. So now she has unleashed James on a witch hunt against seven men who did nothing wrong in a desperate attempt to boost their re-election odds. Sickening."
Brianna Lyman on X - "The Cornell 7 will not receive a fair trial. The internet mob, the Me Too mob, and the feminist mob has cast aside all facts in this case. The AG has already declared the young men guilty before even reviewing the details."
Thread by @fentanylbrownie on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "I want to try, in good faith, to explain why right wingers feel the way they do about the “Cornell 7” and this sort of case to liberals. My usual audience will find this quite boring and probably too generous, but I think it’s worth identifying the structural underpinnings here.
If we truly lived in a rationalist, sexually liberated egalitarian society as- critically- most liberals believe in their minds that we do, the response most people would have to reading the above would be “It sounds like some college kids got wasted and had sex.” In principle, liberal sexual morality is actually very pro-college kids getting wasted and having sex. Having explicitly eschewed traditional sexual mores, they have no standing to raise an issue over sexually mature adults engaging in casual sex, as long as it’s Consenual. And that is the confounding factor. To liberals, “Consent” has become a magic word to launder what are in substance very traditional, superstitious and chauvinistic sexual politics. The difference is that these values have no commensurate obligations for women.
Let’s imagine this situation occurred in 1956. It would become a lurid spectacle, the same as today, and the men involved would be smeared as perverted philanderers. The woman, however, would also bear responsibility for agreeing to drug-fueled sexual congress with two men. In 2026 the woman bears no responsibility, but the total responsibility is still conserved. Rather than tomcats, the men involved are now “rapists” who bear all culpability for the situation. These sexual values are not liberated nor permissive, but in fact deeply religious. The subtext is this: Women cannot meaningfully consent to sex. They are susceptible to social pressure and desire to please men, so therefore all sexual encounters are coerced to some degree. Accordingly, consent can be revoked retroactively, as it could never truly be given.
And certainly, never could a woman actually initiate a sexual situation with a man. All sexual situations are initiated by men, who are lustful by their nature and apt to prey on women. All sexual congress is, at bottom, the work of the man involved. The above is what liberals, when judged by their actions and reactions to spectacles such as that of the “Cornell 7”, actually believe. They are not the egalitarian rationalists of their self-conception, but superstitious and religious. The religion, however, is liberal feminism. So the gripe men, particularly conservative men, have with this unholy minefield of modern and traditional values is that they’re getting the short end of both sticks. Womens’ honor and virtue are valuable right up until they say “I’d rather my wife never engaged in a ketamine orgy with 7 frat brothers.” That sentiment is basically unspeakable under the state religion of liberal feminism. Women are permitted if not encouraged, in theory, to engage in such an act, which would necessarily involve men and by its nature be messy and lurid. But they cannot meaningfully consent to it, because they’d be inebriated and alone with 7 men who could harm them. Even explaining it sounds crazy, which it would, because it’s crazy! I don’t know how anyone is expected to navigate this morality, least of all 20 year-olds in college.
It all goes back to the same thing, the Big Question that the 21st Century is on a collision course to reckon with: Can women be full legal adults, with all the rights, privileges and- critically- obligations that entails, or are they a separate class that requires protection? If they are the latter, which rights, privileges and obligations should they have, and which should they have not? The way we live now is completely untenable, and it’s killing us. Everyone can see that it’s killing us. It stares at us from everywhere we dare not look. You can have your opinion about the situation but, reading the above excerpt from the DA, can you really say that the available information at this point in time warrants publishing 7 men’s names and faces and calling them RAPISTS? Can you honestly say that?"
Ultimately, if you follow feminist logic far enough, under "patriarchy" women can't meaningfully consent to sex with men, so all heterosexual sex is rape, after all
blighter on X - "good thread. the thing that jumps out when reading these excerpted descriptions of the Cornell 7 events is that everyone's actions seem to almost come out of like a college sex ed "how to be appropriate" seminar. like, literally, we live in an age where the Folsom Street fair is attended by children and widely, openly celebrated. we are told that consent is the thing that matters. there is no inherent shame around sex and drugs, that's all antiquated societal baggage from the bad old, unenlightened past. you should be able to do hard core drugs and engage in weird freaky sex, provided everyone consents. heck, if you want you should be able to bring your family to a public exhibition celebrating doing hard core drugs and engaging in weird freaky sex! it's all good. but look at what the girl -- the girl herself! -- says happened here. she was invited over and accepted the invitation. she was invited to do drugs and accepted the invitation. she was invited into threesome sex and accepted the invitation. at various points she asked to stop and the activity immediately stopped. *she* says it stopped when she asked, not the guys. this is all according to *her*. so, fundamentally, do we live in a world where doing hard drugs and engaging in freaky sex is inherently wrong or do we not? if we live in a world where it is not inherently wrong, where it can only be wrong if was not consented to, well, then, there seems to be nothing wrong here. she consented, repeatedly, throughout the evening. whenever her consent was withdrawn, everything stopped. according to *her*. now if, on the other hand, it remains true that doing hard drugs and engaging in freaky sex is inherently bad and remains so even if repeatedly explicitly consented to throughout the acts, then that's a different set of morality. in many ways a more coherent and venerable morality. but then we should probably also stop celebrating stuff like The Folsom Street fair."
Close the Dip on X - "Remember: women are protesting the prenups that they themselves have signed. The issue might be that we have built up a cult-of-personality where the entire West is built upon creating a system of consequences for men that must be bestowed when women don't like something."
Despite their protestations about sexual liberation, feminists at some level believe that sexual acts considered degenerate are wrong, ergo their double standards around them
Jill Filipovic on X - "Plenty of people have fun and consensual group sex. They don’t typically go to the police afterward. And if what Jane Doe and these men wanted was fun and consensual group sex, they could have arranged that for the next day when they were all sober. But let’s just be honest: Most sober and empowered 20-year-old women don’t want to have sex with more than a half-dozen men in a single night, and I suspect that the men in question knew that Jane Doe was not an enthusiastic participant but someone who had to be pressured and plied."
lobin on X - "Who are you to second guess the desires of some people you never met? If feminism means anything, it means allowing women to make their own decisions as individuals. Why are you applying stereotypes?"
valleyforge on X - "You "suspect". They don't "typically". This is an awful lot of speculation and assumption about other people's private business that you have zero knowledge of. Maybe, just maybe, not everyone thinks exactly like you and some make choices you don't think are "typical"."
Thread by @mrsintelqxa on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "If you’re in a room with 7 men, and you think “I’ve already done ketamine before, why not a second time” we have to ask ourselves: are some women just rape magnets? If you are really that scared or uncomfortable, no woman would actually consume more drugs. I mean seriously, the executive dysfunction is off the charts. How retarded do you have to be to make that decision, especially with her reasoning? She was being grossly negligent with her own livelihood at that point. She is not responsible for anything but herself!Not only consuming the drugs, but voluntary snorting the ketamine off of someone’s penis. Of course, she complains that the line was “too big” so maybe… don’t consume it or consume less?! Seriously… y’all expect me to feel bad for her??"
Ben Wehrman on X - "My take on the Cornell 7 case, as someone who lived in a fraternity in college and has seen all the ridiculousness of that environment firsthand: The entire party culture around modern universities is a complete mess, and all parents who have young/adolescent kids need to keep your loved ones FAR away from it completely. Especially girls. And when I say "that environment", I don't just mean just the greek system - I mean universities in general. Even outside of the degenerate nightlife, the "educational" side of these schools is teaching pure propaganda garbage as well.
ON THE EDUCATIONAL LEVEL: College is a scam; homeschooling is the way if you want your kids to actually gain real/applicable knowledge rather than get stuffed full of lies about every aspect of the world.
ON THE SOCIAL LEVEL: Young women at the peak of their fertility prime should be nowhere near an endless supply of horny teenage boys and abundant drugs/alcohol, nor wasting their time studying in libraries for years, just to go into a meaningless HR career, hit 30 before they know it, and realize the entire life track she took was a path to miserable loneliness.
Girls are not wired to be able to handle themselves well in situations with constant temptations like those that are present in the college/party atmosphere. They are designed to be physically protected and led, first by a strong father figure, then passed off to a well-vetted, masculine boyfriend/husband, where she can completely skip this modern "strong and independent" teens/twenties experiment, which is attached at the hip to the feminism psyop as a whole, has clearly been an absolute absolute disaster for all involved, and needs to be completely destroyed on a societal level. Young 18-23 y/o women, who are at their absolute peak in the sexual marketplace, should be settling down with the highest-quality man they'll ever be able to secure, and starting families. Period. It's what they are biologically designed to be doing at that age. I feel for this Jane Doe girl. She got sucked into the degeneracy, partook in it with a bunch of horny degenerate dudes who weren't raised well themselves, then she later realized she fucked her whole life up with her poor decision(s). The way things are set up right now, women have the ability to press the "RAPE" button years later in life to try and salvage some dignity, at the expense of the guys she happened to be with at the time. Both young men and young women need to understand this dynamic, but more importantly, that there are NO WINNERS in this situation. The solution is to completely blow up the framework that keeps creating these problems, and for parents to protect their kids from ever falling into this trap in the first place."
Lakota Ma'am on X - "There's a very good chance that Letitia James broke professional conduct rules by making prejudicial comments about the Cornell 7. The Bar Association's Rule 3.6 states very, very clearly that attorneys involved in civil or criminal proceedings may not make out of court comments that pose a substantial likelihood of prejudicing a case. Letitia James clearly violated this rule. The next step is filing complaints with the New York Bar Association, which anyone can do. You do not need to be a lawyer to file an ethics complaint."
Miranda Devine: The lynch mob is out for the 'Cornell 7' — proving we've learned nothing from past injustices - "The “Cornell 7” gang rape case is descending into the same lynch-mob hysteria as the notorious Duke lacrosse or “mattress girl” hoaxes of old — only with social media making everything worse. It seems we have learned nothing from past injustices... Predictably, the fraternity brothers have been judged guilty in the court of man-hating public opinion. Yet, according to Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten, citing Doe’s sworn statement to campus investigators in November 2024, she “described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious and consensual.” When she told the young men to stop, they did. While describing the allegations as “heinous and despicable” and “morally disturbing,” he said they were not criminal. He has been bombarded with threats and abuse since news of the lawsuit broke two weeks ago, and has now reopened the investigation, saying that her current lawsuit and her initial sworn statement, signed under threat of perjury three weeks after the 2024 encounter, tell very different stories.The alleged “rapists” have been named and shamed by the Cornell campus newspaper, the Daily Sun, and doxed online. One of the men has already lost his job, and as The Post reports, future students are abandoning Cornell over its handling of the case. Democrat politicos have effectively condemned the men, with Gov. Hochul this week praising Doe’s “extraordinary courage” and demanding that Cornell “pursue justice.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez traveled to Ithaca Sunday and condemned “the culture of rape [that] is protected in elite institutions [like] Cornell University.” She said the men had been “protected” by Cornell and called the woman a “survivor.” Then she described herself as a “survivor,” saying she was “touched inappropriately” at her first college party. Ithaca Democrat Mayor Robert Cantelmo damned the accused men as “perpetrators” and suspended “Greek life” at Cornell that he said “failed to hold the perpetrators to account.”But what else do people expect Cornell to have done? The school conducted a months-long investigation, including a hearing where the men and Doe all testified. When Doe was interviewed by campus police, she was provided three support staff, according to CBS News, including a Title IX investigator, a victim’s advocate and a personal adviser. Cornell says that two men were expelled, two were suspended, one had already graduated, and two were found not to have participated in the sex. As well, the fraternity was shut down. In her police interview, Doe said: “I can say with 100% confidence I was raped,” according to CBS News. But in the sworn statement summarizing the interview that she reviewed and signed and amended with more than 20 handwritten corrections, she says she did not withdraw her consent, ABC News reports. Further, when she expressed concerns, the fraternity brothers “stopped and did not pursue what they were doing.” In her current lawsuit, she claims she was incapable of consent, was pressured into taking ketamine and became “completely incapacitated.” Three of the young men have denied the allegations through lawyers. Text messages between Doe and Male 2 were released in which she told him after the event that she enjoyed being with him, and suggested they smoke together again, “but like leave out the extra 5 billion men and ketamine.” She also said “none of the sexual stuff was illegal.” In her sworn statement, she admitted to willingly engaging in two threesomes during an hours-long encounter on Oct. 19, 2024, in which she consumed alcohol and ketamine of her own free will, describing her intoxication level when she arrived at the fraternity as a “5 out of 10.” The first threesome ended prematurely when Male 1 passed out and Male 2 “began to dry-heave as if he was going to vomit.” Male 3 arrived, and he and Male 2 engaged in a threesome with her while Male 1 slept. Male 1 then woke up and asked for a foursome, to which she said “hell no,” and the men backed off.She told police she had agreed to the threesome “due to how attracted [she] was to [Male Number 1] on top of [her] drunken curiousness.” Four more men arrived in the room after Male 2 despicably announced on the fraternity Snapchat that there was “free p–sy” available. Male 4 asked if they “all could do drugs off of [her] perfect body.” Jane Doe responded, “Sure.” She recounted another threesome “until at some point, around 5:45 a.m., [Jane Doe] said [she] was tired and needed to turn in. At that point, both guys stopped the threesome.” None of us knows the whole truth, but the young woman deserves sympathy. She was just 20 years old and intoxicated. When she woke up the next day and realized she was the butt of campus gossip, she felt ashamed. But our culture tells young women that there’s nothing shameful about promiscuity. Now, to prize female modesty is called slut-shaming, and girls and young women are encouraged to behave like unpaid hookers. When men take them at their word, they often end up feeling used and disrespected. So Doe’s friends encouraged her to convert her honestly earned shame into victimhood. She blames the young men, the bar that sold her alcohol, her sorority, the fraternity, Cornell, you name it. Everyone but herself for the bad choices she made that night. The young men made bad choices, too, and I would be ashamed to have sons who behaved that way. But they were just as young and just as out of it as she was and don’t deserve to have their lives ruined if the evidence shows they committed no crime. They’re all victims of a toxic, pornified culture that sends our girls and boys into the world with no sexual boundaries, other than wokeified ideas of consent that make no sense. The subtle taboos that used to protect young people from the consequences of their immaturity have been erased, and now instead of preventing harm, moral condemnation is applied cruelly after the fact. Doe felt it in the campus ridicule she found so intolerable that she had to leave Cornell, and the men now feel it in the form of mob shaming that fits neatly into the leftist “Me Too” narrative that all men are rapists and we must “believe all women.” Life is more complicated than that."
ππππππ πππππ on X - "not to “victim blame,” but if you snort ketamine off a dude’s dick I don’t think he’s wrong in assuming you’re dtf"
AF Post on X - "After going to the Cornell Chi Phi fraternity house on October 19 and 20 to have sex, the Cornell accuser, Jane Doe, hoped to return for a Halloween party but was disinvited by the fraternity president, who considered it a bad idea. Doe said, “The woman will always get the short end of the stick,” in response to the disinvitation. By November 3, she had decided that she had been raped. Follow: @AFpost"
W. on X - "The official NYT piece on the "Cornell 7" case is basically “Jane Doe changed her story from consent to rape only after people started making jokes about her and the fraternity disinvited her to their Halloween party". It is very honest and uncharitable. This would have been unthinkable from the NYT just a few years ago. Crazy how far the culture has come."
YinkaThatGuy on X - "The Cornell 7 discourse has feminism doing something genuinely hilarious: “Women are autonomous adults.” …but somehow if alcohol, sex, regret or a bad decision enters the story, men were supposed to supervise, intervene and “know better” for her. So after decades of fighting the patriarchy, the solution is apparently… Bring back the patriarchy"
Bad Hombre on X - "The Tawana Brawley gang-rape story turned out to be a hoax. The Christine Blasey Ford gang rape accusation against Kavanaugh turned out to be a hoax. The 2006 Duke lacrosse gang-rape story turned out to be a hoax. The 2009 Hofstra University gang-rape story turned out to be a hoax. The 2014 University of Virginia gang-rape story turned out to be a hoax. The “Cornell 7” gang-rape accusation turned out to be a hoax. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to “believe all women.”"
Thread by @elegationvain on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Men need to realize how many young women, esp teen girls, will go along with sex acts they don't want because they don't want to offend or anger him, or even worse, they're afraid their no won't be respected. It's easier to just let it happen. This is one of the thousand reasons you shouldn't walk into your buddy's room and start having sex with the drunk girl your buddy's too drunk to be having sex with."
malmesburyman on X - "Of course this is true, which is why at one time there were social rituals aimed at making girls delay sex-having, like dances with chaperones and courtship and ‘have my daughter home by 9pm’. This system restrained both men and women, and we got rid of it. Now we have people wanting to bring back the good that system did, but with no social rituals and no expectation of restraint for women— only the expectation that men will exercise self-restraint for fear of running afoul of the law, or some mob of clucking old women online. It’s obviously ridiculous and will never work."
Thread by @vladgothgirl on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Women are now saying it’s common and normal to ask your “rapist” to hang out after he rapes you lmfaooo
Don’t let women gaslight you. They are lying to your face. I’d know immediately if someone raped me. It’s not even a question."
Heather Mac Donald on X - "Let’s take a moment, in light of the Cornell “rape case” hysteria, to savor the dilemmas facing the activists and academics who promote the idea of “rape culture.” If there is indeed a “culture of rape” at elite institutions, as Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez recently reaffirmed, why do female students flock into them? Cornell’s student body went from a little under 50 percent female in 2005 to nearly 54 percent female in 2025. The hoary (no pun intended) statistic bandied about relentlessly during the height of 2010’s campus rape frenzy—that one in four female undergraduates would be sexually assaulted during her college years—signifies a level of criminal sexual violence unheard of even during African tribal wars. Yet instead of demanding a massive expansion of single-sex schools where they could study safely, females keep trooping in to co-ed colleges and, even more inexplicably in light of the received feminist wisdom, into the frat parties that are allegedly hot beds of rape. Either females are too stupid to take the most basic of precautions or there is no rape crisis and they know it. The same goes for their status-hungry mothers: why are they sending their daughters into such a maelstrom of violence? Answer: that violence does not exist. Likewise, Cornell either has to defend its integrity and assert that it properly investigated and responded to Jane Doe’s “rape” charge in 2024, or it has to capitulate to its feminist student body and professoriate and admit to trivializing rape and to insufficiently believing survivors. Cornell’s September 30 press release tries to have it both ways—implicitly exculpating itself while promising to do even more to “support survivors” and to foster a “culture of safety.” Doe’s original complaint to the police, filed days after the bacchanal, gave no hint that she had been coerced into group sex and drug use. Instead it described a set of voluntary if sordid transactions. Justice was done the first time around, but any university is fatally compromised in being able to state such a truth, thanks to its own promotion of victim fiction. I dissect the campus rape hoax here:"
At some level left wingers know they're lying
Thread by @rawdogmillionar on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Three of the “Cornell 7” never even touched her by her own account so not “half a dozen” She agreed at every juncture, everytime she disagreed they stopped, and when she said she was tired they called it a night and ended it
Either women are responsible for their own choices and assume the risk of high risk behaviors like getting drunk, agreeing to group sex, and agreeing to do ketamine during group sex. Or they are fragile and need to be protected and shouldn’t really have a say in what activities they participate in and with who for their own safety and wellbeing
Here’s Sunny Hostin of the very liberal biased, woman biased view stating facts (not opinions) about the case. When you stick to the facts, you realize there’s not really a lot of room to go after these guys criminally
Here’s the full account if you’re actually willing to look at evidence. This is her own statement from 2024 to the police about the events of the night, wherein you see it wasn’t 7 men drugging and raping an innocent girl for 7 hours like what many are portraying it to be
I have to correct this:
2/7 never touched her (unless they did ketamine off her body which she gave permission for everyone to do)
1/7 tried to make out with her and she rejected him and that was the end of that (it’s almost like when she said no, they respected the no)"
Rikki Schlott on X - "Why isn’t anyone talking about how the Cornell story is also a part of the pornification of our culture? It’s not actually normal for college kids to throw bukake parties, consensual or not. Growing up with porn has warped their sense of what’s sexually normal."
Erin "Skeleton Factory" Ryan on X - "A 5-minute Google search shows that girl that all the incels on this website are saying is Jane Doe did not graduate from high school until 2023. Doe's lawsuit states very plainly that she entered Cornell as a freshman in 2022."
Michael Tracey on X - "It's either an error or deliberate distortion by Jane Doe's notoriously unscrupulous attorney, Thomas Giuffra. Giuffra does in fact claim in the complaint that Jane Doe started at Cornell in August 2022. It's also true that she graduated high school in 2023. So, ostensibly, the timelines don't line up. However: Giuffra is notorious for not doing basic due diligence, and not bothering to check basic facts -- as with the easily-disproven false claims he made about Sean "Diddy" Combs in one of his previous settlement-fishing expeditions. All the recent reporting on the Title IX proceedings in the NYT and elsewhere establishes that Jane Doe was a sophomore at the time of the purported gang rape in October 2024. That means Jane Doe would've had to start Cornell in August 2023 -- not August 2022 as Giuffra falsely states in the complaint. She then began her sophomore year in August 2024. So upon further inspection, the timeline *does* add up -- notwithstanding the errors and/or misdirection thrown into the lawsuit by her notorious scam-artist lawyer. Unclear what "incels" have to do with any of this, though."
An incel is anyone who disagrees with a woman
Jared Holt on X - "Michael Tracey published what he said was the ID of "Jane Doe" in the Cornell case. Then he took it down, claiming it was out of principle. What he didn't admit is that he mistook info on a sketchy site for official NY court records. Let's take a look at what actually happened."
Michael Tracey on X - "This isn't what happened. You're full of shit as usual, Jared, and you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time fixating on and/or lying about me. I'd already spent three days independently corroborating Jane Doe's identity, long before the OCR scrape on that court aggregator website was brought to my attention last night. This included speaking to multiple sources who knew Jane Doe personally, cross-checking university records, records from her sorority, her social media accounts, and other materials connected to her, as well as her local counsel of record in her home town, which is identified in the civil complaint, and consulting with a bevy of lawyers, fellow journalists, and other sources. There *is* material on the official NY State Court docket that reveals the identity of Jane Doe, if you know what to look for. Make sure to check it out, Jared. I had already reached 95% certainty before that court scraper site appeared last night, and had even already sent Jane Doe a request for comment several hours earlier. I'd also contacted her lawyers Thomas Giuffra and Whitney Seals. I would obviously NEVER have published her identity based solely on scraped info from a court aggregator website. That's why I remain completely confident that the reporting is accurate, despite the substantively irrelevant detail some people want to dwell on about the court scraper website. My logic and thinking has always been the same as to Jane Doe's identity: I place primary blame for this whole fiasco on her notoriously unscrupulous lawyer, Giuffra, and have no ill-will toward her personally at all. I genuinely hope she is doing OK. I suspect she did not fully appreciate what she was getting herself into. I literally communicated this exact sentiment to her directly, in the text I sent her hours before publishing yesterday. My journalistic motivation has NEVER been about impugning on her on a personal level. I would genuinely never have any interest in doing that. It was about the sleazy litigation tactics that were deployed on her behalf: namely the cynical exploitation of judicially-decreed, media-enabled anonymity, whenever anyone can self-proclaim any sort of alleged victimization, no matter how well-founded or backed up by the evidence. This is a recurring problem I have reported on before in entirely different contexts. You can claim I'm lying about my own motives, Jared, and that you know better what's in my own brain than I do, but you're just wrong, as usual. The reporting is accurate. Once her identity was published, the point had been sufficiently made about the need to erode these scummy lawyer-orchestrated, media-abetted anonymity strictures. Thereafter, I no longer wished to contribute to heaping her with negative attention, especially given the unbelievably intense public scrutiny around this case. Have you noticed that none of NYT, CBS, ABC, etc. -- who are all getting un-redacted material leaked from the Title IX proceedings -- have come out and said that someone has been wrongly identified online as Jane Doe? That's because it's accurate. For better or worse. I'm sorry for her and wish her no further misfortune. Really. I don't care if you believe me -- it's true. Now fuck off, Jared"
The Cornell Seven and the problem with consent | The Spectator - "It’s October and a new academic year is underway. In Britain, students are taking diversity classes; in France, they are rioting. And in America, they are panicking about campus rape culture. Plus Γ§a change… At first glance, the facts are horrific... Anger at the police for deciding not to prosecute may also be misguided. Papers now seen by UnHerd include Doe’s initial statement, in which she says that she agreed to have sex with two men, and consented to taking drugs, including snorting ketamine off the erect penis of one of the accused and allowing others to snort drugs off her naked body. By the end of the evening, Doe, now more intoxicated, claims she was aware of having sex with other men but could not ‘remember how it started’. It is perhaps unsurprising, then, that the police decided her behaviour met the legal standard for voluntary consent, and there were insufficient grounds for bringing a prosecution. Neither is the subsequent disciplinary hearing, carried out by the university, a straightforward story of male privilege. All seven men faced very serious accusations in what has since been described as a ‘kangaroo court’. Two of the men, found guilty by the university, were eventually suspended from the university. Yet, in her initial statement, Doe describes one of the men involved as struggling to maintain an erection and needing a ‘nap’, and another as ‘dry-heaving’ during their encounter. It is hard not to conclude that Doe and these two men were intoxicated, yet only the woman was deemed unable to consent. Another man, Scott Kretzschmar, stood accused of sexually assaulting Doe by snorting ketamine off her naked body. He protested his innocence and provided the results of a drug test, which proved negative for the drug. Yet, after being tried over a Zoom call, during which his lawyer noticed that one committee member was apparently in a car and driving during the proceedings, he was found guilty of attempted sexual exploitation, a charge he says he did not even know he was facing. These new details cast doubt on the narrative now being promoted by Doe’s celebrity backers. The legacy of the almost decade-old Me Too movement is that we ‘believe all women’ but, as the Cornell case shows, sometimes reality is more complex, and we need to think critically. Rape is horrific and undoubtedly utterly devastating for the victim. But false allegations must also be taken seriously. Rather than rushing to pass judgement on the Cornell Seven, we should ask why men and women are held to different standards on consent, and why university disciplinary committees should play any role at all in trying such serious accusations as rape."
