Inside a ‘rape’ kangaroo court at Cornell - "The written record of the day’s hearing, reviewed by UnHerd and first reported here, opens a window onto the one-sided procedures used by universities to impose after-the-fact accountability on one group and only one — accused young men... A manic rush to judgement has followed, one that is all too reminiscent of episodes such as the 2006 Duke lacrosse case and the controversy sparked by a 2014 Rolling Stone essay that alleged a heinous, hours-long gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity. Both of those earlier narratives ultimately unravelled under factual scrutiny, but not before upturning the lives of the accused and contributing to an atmosphere of paranoia and accusation on campus. The Cornell case has yet to be fully adjudicated. Yet already, the staff of The Cornell Daily Sun, the university’s main student publication, published an editorial headlined, “Cornell Won’t, We Will”, and doxxed the students... The accused students’ likenesses have been shared as well on social media, often with instructions to “make their images and names known”, or even to “remove their heads in a public setting” (the latter post has received more than 140,000 “likes” on Instagram as of the time of writing)... He asserts that when he saw the “free pussy” message on the group chat, he stopped by the alumni room to make sure nothing “bad” was afoot. He also insists that, when he stepped in, Doe was in bed but under the covers. Kretzschmar’s legal team apparently also provided the school with the results of a hair-follicle test, which turned up negative for ketamine... the inability of “male number 1” to maintain an erection and need for a “nap” during the threesome, not to mention dry-heaving by “male number 2”, suggest that both of the original men in the scenario were also deeply impaired... The legal situation, however, is fairly clear: barring facts still to come to light, she was not sexually assaulted, not according to the legal definition under state law. Attempts to reopen the case would seem to be motivated by the eruption of public outrage. And Doe’s own civil claim makes the weak argument that she was “incapable of consent” due to intoxication, without presenting any of the standards of proof required, which go well beyond the simple fact of intoxication. Even so, a young woman was involved in group sexual acts that she subsequently regretted, finding them alienating and degrading. In other words, Doe is mostly a victim of a campus sexual ethic that rests upon bare consent as its sole criterion of right and wrong. Try as they might, university and Greek-life officials can’t stop a student like Doe in her determination to drink away her own inhibitions and to place herself in sexually risky circumstances. And Cornell did try. In 2022, the university established a special office that implements anti-sexual-violence training in fraternities. Four years earlier, it prohibited the consumption of hard alcohol in fraternity and sorority houses entirely. Doe managed to drink anyway. Even before she left her own sorority for the evening, according to her own suit, she drank Tito’s vodka. This, in blatant violation of both the campus prohibition against hard alcohol in Greek houses and the sorority’s own rules. Then, at the two events that she later attended in Ithaca, the private vendors took measures to identify her as underage, marking X’s on her hands and giving her an under-21 bracelet. At one of the events, Doe’s sorority had designated “sober monitors” to surveil “their fellow sorority sisters for signs of excessive intoxication”, according to the civil suit. Once again, Doe continued to drink. We can implement ever stricter measures: this week, Ithaca’s mayor moved to ban Cornell student-event permits altogether. However, in a more or less free society, those who want to get intoxicated and have sex will find a way to do so; decades of efforts to prevent this have so far been in vain. Which is why the solution is not law, but judgement: among the young men, yes, but also the young women and the wider culture. Our narrow view of sexual morality holds that anything goes as long as there is consent. According to both our cultural values and the law, a young woman can engage in sexual activity with seven frat boys, provided it’s what she wants. Bonnie Blue, to some, is a feminist icon. As a standard for sexuality, this shows extremely poor judgement, and it’s no wonder both young women and young men make terrible errors. Given this ethical culture, all the system can do is mete out after-the-fact punishment to young men. But the unfairness of these processes only compounds the aggregate injustice. Savannah Bao, the Cornell adjudicator, was driving for at least 45 minutes, according to Kretzschmar’s appeal of the panel’s decision. This, he charges, was during a crucial portion of the Zoom hearing, in which another of the accused Cornell men, Scott Norris, was offering testimony that Kretzschmar saw as exculpating him. Yet her driving was far from the only procedural defect in the hearing. Earlier that day, Saland complained in another email to the Title IX coordinator that Bao’s “glasses clearly reflected a blue box with a white background on her screen as her head and eyes moved back and forth” — that is, she was surfing other windows, rather than focusing on the matter at hand... Cornell struck Kretzschmar with a disciplinary conviction related to a charge he didn’t even know he was facing. The original charges against him, recall, were rape and sexual exploitation. These charges arose from Doe’s allegation that Kretzschmar had seen her naked and snorted ketamine off her body, both without her consent. But Kretzschmar insisted, and the hearing panel implicitly agreed, that he hadn’t taken either step: Doe was fully covered with sheets when Kretzschmar entered the alumni room. And the hair follicle test indicated that Kretzschmar hadn’t taken any ketamine, whether snorted from a woman’s body or otherwise. Thus, he was exonerated of both rape and sexual exploitation. But Cornell wasn’t done. In the end, as noted, the school convicted Kretzschmar of attempted sexual exploitation solely because he had visited the alumni room after seeing the Snapchat messages and because of his own message to the group (“the alumni shit is not a bit. . . .”). Kretzschmar, the panel contended, “understood that a female was likely nude and/or engaged in sexual activity in the alumni room . . . and entered the room on that basis, intending to observe the same.” But Kretzschmar wasn’t, beforehand, apprised of the attempted charge, which is its own separate offence category in the university’s policies. Therefore, neither he nor his counsel could have prepared for or attempted to refute it: “attempt”, after all, has elements other than exploitation proper. Under Cornell policies, the attempt charge involves conduct “tending toward completion of the prohibited conduct”. As Saland, his lawyer, argued in the administrative appeal of the panel’s determination, “had Cornell informed [Kretzschmar] that he was being charged with Attempted Sexual Exploitation, … he would have focused his defense, arguments, questions as to witnesses, and review of the investigative file towards” disproving attempt. But Cornell denied him such notice, leaving him and his counsel helpless before what amounted to a legal switcheroo. This was, without a doubt, a grave violation of his right to due process and even of Cornell’s own rules — with which, courts in New York have repeatedly held, the university was obligated to comply. This is not a failure of any one institution, but of all of them. The university kangaroo court trampled on procedure and possibly the truth to achieve an ideological vision of justice. The court of public opinion has done the same. The police and prosecutors held firm at first, but since a new criminal case has been opened, we don’t know what the future holds. Both the young woman and the young men were ill-served by a culture that told them that in some situations, their behaviour was desirable. Both have had their college experience and lives derailed. The American university — and, indeed, US society writ large — desperately needs a new sexual ethic. It won’t do to punish only one side of the sexual equation, young men, especially not in procedurally deficient quasi-trials that bring shame to a rule-of-law society. The public is angry for reasons that no criminal process, no lawsuit, and no administrative hearing can fix."
Amy Diehl, Ph.D. on X - "1,200 sexual assault cases were filed at Cornell from 2018 to 2024. Most of those found responsible received minor sanctions that allowed them to remain on campus, such as probation or training. Only 7 ended in expulsion or dismissal."
Dre Baldwin | #WorkOnYourGame on X - "Highly misleading. I read and highlighted what Amy conveniently left out.
1. 1,200 *reports*. 162 cases. Not every report becomes a case.
2. The reporting system appears to be anonymous, as the school itself admits that they don’t always even identify the alleged victim.
3. The school is not “issuing lenient punishments“ because it is not finding that anything has actually happened via most of these reports.
4. “Expert”’Nicole Bedera has a full-time job “finding” these issues. If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
5. According to the school, “sometimes the victim chooses not to proceed with a case.”
6. How many reports come from secondhand sources “who may not have all the details.“ but it ends up in their “reports“ system. What the hell does that mean.
7. The Obama-era measures – reinstated by Biden and later removed by Trump – made it impossible for accused students to receive due process.
Do you know that if you were charged with sexual assault on many college campuses, you were not allowed a lawyer and could not even question your accuser. And a ruling would be issued. Do people even know this."
Imp on X - "Thought experiment. Which of the two scenarios seems more likely?
A) Cornell buried 1,193/1,200 sexual assault cases to protect rapists
B) The vast majority of these allegations were false
Gee - this one is really a thinker."
Feminists really believe that all alleged rapes were real rapes except for those proven to be false accusations, so
KenFarmer ⒶⓋ on X - "These are the feminists that other feminists are now accusing of cover up to protect the Cornell 7. University Title IX Investigator Samantha Freeburn and Christie White (among others) conducted more than 50 interviews, including 32 witnesses. They reviewed and included in their report:
7 accused participants
8 additional witnesses
12 days of testimony
Estimated 4,000 to 5,000 pages in the full record
More than 1,700 pages of hearing transcripts
and Audio-visual evidence.
Then they wrote a 99-page hearing panel decision.
It took them months to do. In a Title IX case hearsay is admissible and there is no cross examination. The bar is VERY low. So now we are supposed to believe that 3 to 5 self identified feminists, with pronouns in the bio and all, are the ones who did the heavy lifting in a coverup of a gang rape that has a video and or audio component? These men were not honorable or respectable in any way in all of this, but can't people see why there are questions in this case?"
Lauren Chen on X - "I see women asking "WHY AREN'T MEN DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THE CORNELL 7!" But aside from the fact that regret ≠ assault. Anytime there is a male-dominated attempt to increase safety (tough on crime, border security, deportations, Daniel Penny) these same women protest to stop it"
Ryan James Girdusky on X - "The fact the Jane Doe is also suing the bar for serving her one drink when she was underage shows how she doesn’t believe she should held responsible for anything she did leading up to the going to the fraternity"
temu temüjin 🐴 on X - "Listen guys, we need to stop being ridiculous with the idea that when you’re intoxicated you can’t consent. I’m a straight man, if I was in a room of 7 horny gay men there is no amount of alcohol or ketamine that would make me let them take turns on me without me objecting physically and verbally, or do ketamine off one of their cocks. I would have to be unconscious for that to happen. She was not unconscious, she was actively deciding the whole time who she was going to let do what, where, how many at a time etc, and everytime she voiced an objection clearly directly and verbally, they stopped, and yes she was intoxicated because she chose to enter an intoxicated state then kept choosing to increase her intoxication levels by accepting more and more drugs . So please cut the bullshit. All men know this, we know we can’t become drunk and let gay guys fuck us when we don’t want it, it’s not a thing that happens and to the extent it does we don’t go around suing over it. This isn’t some evil standard pulled out of our ass to enable rapists, we just are asking women to be held to the same standards we are if they want to continue to hold the same equal rights we do . That’s all . We simply don’t want them to have the power to have fully consensual sex that they wanted at the time, that they let happen without objection, only to weaponize it against us the very first time they’re mad at us over something unrelated to the sex we had Is that unreasonable?"
temu temüjin 🐴 on X - "Feminists fought for the right of every woman to enter the world of men. And guess what, that world is a blood sport. It’s a blood sport that you were, for many millennia, shielded from to the best of the ability of men to do so . In that world, there will be those who try to cheat you and lie to you and coerce you and deceive you and prey upon you and take advantage of your kindness and your naïveté and your good intentions exactly as happens to us when we don’t keep our wits about us. And we can’t put bubble wrap on everything to shelter you from every hazard you might encounter or every meanie or doo doo head or asshole you might meet. There are more important things we have to do than coddle people who entered the arena with blindfolds on and couldn’t handle it, all this nagging and crying is disruptive to the productive project underway. You can’t demand the police come and personally beat and jail everyone over every interpersonal dispute or an ambiguous hookup or situation you decided years later you feel weird about. This is not a kindergarten classroom, things are rough and confusing and dirty and ambiguous and dangerous, people are deceitful and duplicitous and of low moral character. this is what you were sheltered from and now it’s the world you’re in. There’s broken glass on the street, if you’re going to walk on it then wear shoes. You can’t walk around barefoot and then cry when your feet bleed. You CAN always just stay home"
Eric S. Raymond on X - "Anybody who's being honest about the Cornell rape accusations needs to confront a basic fact about the way many young women in American society behave. We are constantly exhorted to believe that intoxicated women are incapable of giving consent, and booze-lubricated sex should be considered rape. But young women not uncommonly get drunk in public to disinhibit themselves and signal sexual availability. This gives them the get-out-of-guilt card that they're nice girls, but the booze - or some guy - did it. I'm not writing today to either approve or disapprove of that particular mating behavior. What I'm here to point out is that the no-drunken-consent scolds are being deeply dishonest. This bullshit needs to stop. The pretense that intoxicated women don't routinely put themselves in that state to collect sexual rewards is - hypocritical is just not as strong enough word. It's corrosive. It's corrosive of trust. Corrosive of good morals. How can we expect young men to have any respect for what older adults tell them about sexual right conduct when we start by laying this whopper of a lie on them? It used to be we could sort of tolerate this nonsense. But the corruption of the term "rape", the removal of the assumption that physical coercion is involved, makes it much worse. A guy at a party has to deal with the possibility that the chick with booze on her breath who has obviously decided he's her stud for the night might turn around and hit him with a "rape" accusation that will ruin his life a week later. Even if he was objectively as kind and loving and willing to take no for an answer as anyone could ask for. Is this fair to anybody? It's cruel to men, likely to make them angry and uncaring. It infantilizes women. I don't have to render any judgment about the morality of the situation to to notice that it's explosively unstable. We actually hear serious calls to repeal the 19th Amendment these days... Because I'm not actually here to moralize about sexual choices or norms, I'm not going to try to offer a prescriptive solution to this problem. Except to say this: We really really really need to stop lying to ourselves."
Linda on X - "I think that the Cornell university fraternity president disinviting Lucy from the Halloween party triggered this series of events. Prior to that she felt both taken advantage of and responsible/embarrassed Both true. Being disinvited put a scarlet letter on her ie: this isn’t a mistake you should all wear - you’re just a slut who shouldn’t come around. I honestly think if they’d let her go to that party and been welcoming and showed her support she would have moved on. What she couldn’t do was allow herself to be branded as the gang bang slut barred from the frat house. Huge mistake"
Daniel Friedman on X - "Ever since the Dear Colleague letter in 2011 and the crackdowns on Greek life after Duke Lacrosse, fraternities have been training chapter presidents on how to protect their chapters from these situations. The Chi Phi president (who is not one of the 7 accused men) messed up, and that is why this has happened, and why the chapter was banned from campus. The basic rule is to act like a bar or a casino — when people get too visibly sloppy and intoxicated, you kick them out of the house so that the chapter isn’t held responsible for what happens to them. Girls who get high or sloppy drunk at frat parties are perceived as a huge liability risk precisely because every frat has some dumbshit brothers like the guys at Cornell who see a human lawsuit tottering around in a miniskirt and think “free pussy.” The fraternity president’s job is to kick the idiot drunk girls out of the party before the idiot drunk brothers take them into a bedroom to make national news. And when a girl demonstrates that she presents this kind of risk, the protocol is to ban her from the house. But you can’t ban her from the house afterward your brothers have already run a train on her. The fraternity president at Cornell let the thing that subjected his chapter to liability happen, and then he banned the girl from the house afterward, which alienated her and pissed her off. She was sending flirty texts to the guys right up until the president banned her, and then she cut off her ties with them and went to the cops. They should have been trying to make her happy. After what happened, that girl should have been the queen of Chi Phi. She should have been given an open invitation to every party and unlimited ketamine. The guy who proposed the threesome should have had to marry her."
Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani on X - "The allegations in the Cornell sexual assault case are deeply disturbing and gut-wrenching. Cornell University has failed this survivor. I fully support Governor Hochul's decision to name Attorney General James as special prosecutor in this case and look forward to the complete and extensive investigation that is to come. Accountability and justice cannot simply be values, they must also be delivered."
RAW EGG NATIONALIST on X - "We all know how deeply Zohran Mamdani feels about white boys having sex with white girls at college. He voiced his seething resentment about passed over by white girls at college in a series of writings in the early 2010s. I'm sure the Cornell case is deeply personal for him."
Hon. Vickie Paladino on X - "Attention young men — no matter how many bro podcasts they do, Democrats still hate you and are ideologically committed to your subjugation. They are still the party of ‘me too’ and toxic hardline feminism, and will always throw you under the bus in any situation where a woman makes an accusation against a man, no matter how obviously false. Whether it’s Lindsey Clancy, the Duke Lacrosse case, or this ‘Jane Doe’ the default position of Democrats is that women can do no wrong and men are automatically to blame and must be punished. They’re not shy about it. Remember this and don’t fall for their BS psyop where they pretend they’re not filled with contempt for masculinity for a few minutes during election season. The only thing that need be said about the Cornell case is that it’s disgusting and degenerate and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves, including the woman. Not an excuse to enact some feminist revenge fantasy."
Bridget Ayers on X - "New York Ladies - Get Ready to Pack Your Lipstick and Your Breathalyzer
“Can I buy you a drink?”
“Sure.”
“Great. First, blow into this. Now speak to the camera.”
Dating in New York is about to get complicated.
“Choosing to have a drink is not consent.” Well, yes. Obviously. But where’s the line? Two drinks? Four? Six?
What man is going to want to meet a woman at a bar, club, or party if a few drinks can later become part of an accusation that she was too intoxicated to consent?"
Covfefe Anon on X - "The thing about saying that this girl has some level of virtue because she didn't lie in the initial police report is that it doesn't put that in the context of her later actions which reveal how she understood her actions at the time. She goes to the police, she has a vague but utterly mistaken idea about the law (based on tumbr and reddit pro-woman delusion) and said words that would get those men imprisoned *under her understanding of the law*. When this understanding was corrected and she was told "no, you just described something that is totally legal" her reaction wasn't "oh, ok, good to know - guess that's legal and I just did something I regretted" - instead her reaction was "Oh? Well then *this* is what happened!" where she then described something that is illegal. There is no way should could have acted to make it any clearer that she views her words as magic spells that will compel other men to punish men according to her whims. Instead of smashing a skull with a hammer, she attempted to say words that lead to a skull being smashed with a hammer and *adjusted her words when the skull smashing didn't happen*. Some apparently intelligent people say "well, those men shouldn't have done a thing that would upset that girl if they didn't want her to file a false criminal complaint against them" - *which is an absolute inversion of morality*. "Can't do the time, don't do the crime" is pretty straightforward statement the encapsulates a key piece of wisdom - namely that "it is perfectly expected and acceptable that punishment will fall on me if I take actions that are prohibited". The "women can do no wrong" view is "well, you should have expected her to make up lies if she got sufficiently upset and now the legal system takes her lies as truth and makes it impossible for you to show she's lying". This changes the "justice" system to a "don't make women upset" punishment system - this is utter insanity and is no way to run a society and there's almost no escape from it under the current social rules because women simply use language in a different way than men do. If you tell her "you can report this crime if this crime happens and we'll do x to the criminal" many women just hear "if you want x to happen to someone, report him for that crime". Since words are how women act on the world it never even occurs to many of them *not* to use their words to accomplish their ends. Sane societies understood this. This is why the 54th Clause of the Magna Carta exists"
Gina Milan on X - "Jane Doe was so traumatized from getting a train pulled on her that she found the strength 3 days later to tell the Cornell frat boy who allegedly raped her, “i luv u king.”"
The cope is that this is a trauma response. Basically no means no and yes means no
Def Noodles on X - "Dude was literally grossed out by the chick. She tried to fuck him anyway. So he dips to McDonald’s to get away. Now he’s got deranged feminists trying to go viral by harassing him and calling him a rapist. What a sick world."
YinkaThatGuy on X - "Feminist arguments have somehow circled all the way back to: “Women need men to supervise their decisions.” She drinks too much? Men should’ve stopped her. She makes a bad sexual decision? Men should’ve known better for her. She regrets it? Men should’ve protected her from herself. So after decades of “women are independent adults”, the solution is apparently… treat women like children with male chaperones."
Robby Soave on X - "As someone who was involved in setting the record straight in the UVA / Rolling Stone rape hoax, I have serious reservations about reopening the Cornell case. It's important to note that the victim's initial statements to police are radically different from the claims she made in her lawsuit. That's why the DA declined to prosecute: No crime was was even alleged—she described consensual behavior at every key juncture. She has now changed her story completely."
Clearly, Robby Soave is not just a rape apologist, he is probably a rapist himself, and is definitely an incel. Doesn't he know that women never lie about rape?!
Gina Milan on X - "🚨 THIS IS WHY YOU READ THE RECEIPTS. I read the lawsuit against Cornell and was disgusted by how the school handled it. It looked like these seven boys were essentially allowed to walk away after writing essays. Then the original statements and text messages came out. And they CONTRADICT what she is saying in the lawsuit. The DA says her sworn 2024 statement described the drug use and sex as voluntary, conscious, and consensual. She reportedly said she was pretty okay with the threesome that started the night and put her intoxication at about a 5 or 6 out of 10. Then DAYS later, she texted one of the men she now accuses of rape. She said none of the sexual stuff was illegal. She said she liked being with him and another guy. And she asked to hang out and smoke with them again, just without the extra men and the ketamine. You can believe the boys’ behavior was NASTY. You can think the group chat was absolutely disgusting. I do. But none of that automatically makes them guilty of rape or the other crimes alleged in the lawsuit. What makes me angry is that the identities of SEVEN boys were blasted publicly while her own documented statements and messages raise serious questions about the allegations. If she is lying, I hope these boys pursue every legal remedy available and hold her accountable for the damage done to their lives and reputations. The lesson? DON’T JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER. Especially when you haven’t bothered to read the receipts. 👇"
❤️🔥 Lady ❤️🔥 Reaper ❤️🔥 on X - "People need to stop bringing up the duke lacrosse case that was an isolated issue of a batshit crazy stripper who btw is currently serving time for murder because she stabbed her boyfriend"
andieiam on X - "Duke (2006)
Crystal Mangum accused three Duke lacrosse players of gang rape. Charges were dropped; the players were declared innocent by the North Carolina Attorney General. Mangum later admitted the story was fabricated.
Hofstra (2009)
An 18-year-old student accused five men of gang rape in a campus bathroom. She recanted within days after a cell-phone video showed consensual sex. She was charged with filing a false report.
Xavier (2012)
Basketball player Dez Wells was expelled after a fellow student accused him of sexual assault. Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters investigated, a grand jury declined to indict, and Deters publicly called Xavier’s process “fundamentally unfair.” Wells transferred to Maryland and later settled a lawsuit with Xavier.
UC Boulder (2013)
A student (Sarah Gilchriese) reported an alleged assault months after it supposedly occurred. Prosecutors declined to charge. The university’s handling of the case and related Title IX complaints drew federal scrutiny and later lawsuits from accused students claiming biased investigations.
UVA / Rolling Stone (2014)
Sabrina Rubin Erdely’s article “A Rape on Campus” described a brutal fraternity gang rape of a student identified as “Jackie.” Police found no evidence; Rolling Stone fully retracted the story. The account collapsed under basic fact-checking.
Mattress Girl / Columbia (2014)
Emma Sulkowicz accused fellow student Paul Nungesser of rape and carried a mattress around campus as a protest art project. Columbia’s process found Nungesser not responsible. He later sued; the university settled.
Clemson (2015)
Andrew Pampu was found responsible by the university after Erin Wingo claimed she was too intoxicated to consent. A friend later texted Pampu admitting they had lied. A jury awarded Pampu $5.3 million in a defamation/conspiracy case (later partially reversed on appeal).
Sacred Heart (2016)
Nikki Yovino accused two football players of rape at an off-campus party. She later admitted the sex was consensual and that she had lied to preserve a romantic relationship. She pleaded guilty to false reporting and served prison time. The players sued her and the university.
These cases share several features: rapid institutional action under Title IX pressure, limited due-process protections for the accused, heavy media or campus-activist coverage before facts were established, and eventual recantation, prosecutorial refusal to charge, or civil findings that the original claims were false or coordinated."
Allie ✞ on X - "The Cornell 7 case is consent-based morality failing its own stress test. What happened was legal and consensual, but that doesn’t make it right. Now the sex positivity movement is stuck between a rock and a hard place: they have to either admit they were wrong or argue against the facts"
Allie ✞ on X - "Arguably most productive thing that could come out of this case would be if the frat guys counter-accuse. Expose “drunk people can’t consent” for the double standard that it is. Remove the power dynamic that two drunk people hooking up means the man is automatically guilty"
Jane Doe raped a incapacitated guy by giving him a blowjob, after all
AF Post on X - "Cornell's Jane Doe says she tried to take more ketamine to "pass out" so she could claim rape. Follow: @AFpost"
Andy Ngo on X - "This is a statement the Cornell University female gang r—pe accuser provided to law enforcement: “I had become extremely uncomfortable with how this night was turning out, so my thought was, if I do ketamine again, maybe I will pass out … My thought was that if I passed out and these men had sex with me, then they could be charged with rape.”"
Eric S. Raymond on X - "I've now read a summary of what the Jane Doe in the Cornell alleged gang rape told police immediately after the incident. I must say that I'm struck by how well everyone conducted themselves, and I'm including the men. The woman asked for and got what she wanted. The men she said "no" to took no for an answer. Afterwards, she was up for having sex with male #1 again at a future time, which suggests that he gave the satisfaction he should have. If we're going to have a society of sexual liberty, this is what right conduct looks like. Maybe you think that it was disgraceful for a woman to request a drunken threesome, and for the men to fulfill the request. I won't argue that. When I've been offered sex by an intoxicated woman I found attractive, my policy has been to thank her with an appreciative kiss and then say "Ask me again when you're sober." But whatever this was, it wasn't rape. If women have the right to be treated as adults and make sexual choices for themselves, they have the right to make questionable, drunken choices too. The real villain of these piece is whoever talked Jane Doe into believing she was a rape victim."
Bridget Ayers on X - "Cornell University 2024 Rape Case
When I first read the headlines about this case, like most people, I was appalled. Seven men raped a woman for seven hours, and no one was prosecuted? Then I read Jane Doe’s statement, included in attorney Andrew Fleischman’s analysis, and I understood why prosecutors declined to bring charges. Based on that statement, I don’t see how they could have proven rape beyond a reasonable doubt. I want to be clear, I think the actions of these men were reprehensible. Doe obviously liked Male 1 and agreed to a threesome. But to then degrade her and invite other men into the room without her prior consent is unconscionable. The Snapchat messages allegedly telling others they could have sex with her for “free” only make their behavior more repulsive. But reprehensible behavior and criminal rape are not necessarily the same thing. Doe alleges she was pressured into taking ketamine and smoking marijuana while already intoxicated and was then raped by seven men over approximately seven hours before blacking out. Her statement, however, describes a much more complicated sequence. She describes voluntarily participating in sexual activity with multiple men. She cared for Male 2 when he thought he might vomit. She opened the door and let Male 3 into the room herself. When four more men entered, she hid under the covers, which certainly suggests discomfort, but she doesn't describe telling them to leave. She participated in taking ketamine with the group and later allowed them to snort ketamine from her body. Most importantly from a legal standpoint, her statement describes her setting boundaries and those boundaries being respected. When Male 1 proposed a foursome involving anl sex, she said no. It didn't happen. Later, she went with Male 1 and Male 4 to another room, did more ketamine and participated in another threesome. Around 5:45 a.m., she said she was tired and wanted to stop. They stopped. She went to sleep. Fleischman's analysis was that those facts did not establish first, second, or third-degree rape. New York law addresses forcible compulsion, clearly expressed lack of consent, and circumstances in which someone is legally incapable of consenting because of mental incapacitation or physical helplessness. But prosecutors still have to connect those circumstances to the specific sexual conduct occurring at that time. Being heavily intoxicated during the night doesn't automatically establish that every sexual encounter during that night occurred without legally valid consent. And that's where I think the criminal case becomes extremely difficult. Could there have been coercion? Absolutely. Every time she pulled back, more drugs appear to have entered the picture. There are memory gaps. Her intoxication became severe. Those are significant facts. But her statement also describes someone who could communicate, make choices, participate, refuse particular acts and ultimately end the encounter. One statement obviously doesn't tell us everything that happened that night. Other evidence, toxicology, witness accounts or omitted portions of her statement could change the picture. Would Doe have participated in multiple threesomes sober? Maybe not. Looking back sober at something you did while severely intoxicated could be horrifying, especially if it was completely outside your normal behavior. But that's different from proving rape beyond a reasonable doubt. Based solely on the statement Fleischman analyzed, I understand why prosecutors concluded they didn't have a criminal rape case they could prove."
Daughter of Wolves on X - "Look, there’s a very simple solution for all the women out there who don’t want to end up like Jane Doe from the Cornell 7. And here it is:
• Don’t snort K off a strangers d*ck
• Don’t agree to threesomes with several groups of men
And if you want to go really *really* extreme with it, due to how deeply this has affected you…
• Don’t agree to have sex with a man until he’s signed a legal contract with you first
As long as you follow these steps, I GUARANTEE you will not end up like Jane Doe"
