3 ms·

This public shaming without any police report is really troubling. A woman can totally derange a mans life with zero evidence. Either you feel you have been vio

This public shaming without any police report is really troubling. A woman can totally derange a mans life with zero evidence. Either you feel you have been violated, and then you go to the police, or you keep it to yourself. This "trial by twitter" that's going on at the moment is disgusting. A person is supposed to be presumed innocent, and then the alleged victim has his or her day in court. With this, the alleged perpetrator is assumed guilty, and he doesn't get a day in court. She writes: "I thought Jacob was a friend and engaged in consensual sexual relations with him during those three days. It took me five months to process and understand that Jacob had violated my trust and my body." I'm sorry, that's not rape. If you give consent, you can't take it back months after the fact. How is a guy supposed to know what will happen months into the future? By this standard, any male can without knowing he has violated a girl suddenly be accused of rape on fucking twitter or medium? WTF? Hopefully, there's more to her story than that text. What I can read, is that she didn't do a police report, but instead tries to destroy the guys life without any trial, she just decided that he is guilty. From that, it seems like she has put pressure on conferences, his PhD advisors and organizations to destroy him. She assumes no personal responsibility, it's always the guys fault. She writes that he "pushed his sexual agenda" multiple times. Why the fuck did she not just walk away? That's not victim shaming, since I'm not saying she deserved to be "raped", I'm just saying she put herself in a stupid situation, and taking zero responsibility. Swap the genders of that text, and no-one would bat an eye. Seriously, at this point, why would any man have anything to do with women, workplace or otherwise? Look at this story, she calls men that are interested in women for "sexual predators"? How is a future husband and wife supposed to meet?

justifier 9y ago
The 'consensual sexual relations with him during those three days' is out of context The author also states: > Less than a week later, Jacob raped me in his apartment. Two of Jacob’s friends witnessed the assault, one other participated. > In June 2016, I published a description of my assault under the pseudonym “River” on jacobappelbaum.net alongside others’ accounts of harassment and assault. Why ignore some parts of a discussion and only discuss elements that satisfy your predetermined opinion? You also place the word rape condescendingly in quotes which I interpret as you insisting the definition of the word is important In that case what is your definition of rape? In 2012 the doj updated it's, unchanged since 1927, definition of rape: “the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition... >I'm just saying she put herself in a stupid situation Can you elaborate? What was the stupid situation? Are you asserting attendance absolves the attacker? > How is a future husband and wife supposed to meet? the Geraldo defense: https://youtu.be/-neJp7xRIPk https://youtu.be/-neJp7xRIPk An aside.. I apologise for bringing the levity of Colbert's comedy into this conversation but I feel sometimes comedy can be a tool to reach out to the people who enter a discussion with their minds obstinately predetermined
- throwawaymonkie 9y ago
  "I thought Jacob was a friend and engaged in consensual sexual relations with him during those three days. It took me five months to process and understand that Jacob had violated my trust and my body." You're argument is that the second sentence has nothing to do with the first? However, since I parsed it that way, and you seem to agree that having consensual sex and changing opinion later is not rape, then we agree on that. Happy days. The definition of rape you bring is retarded. What if a woman captures a male, forces an apple pie back and forth on his penis? By the definition you chose to bring to this discussion, that's not rape. You're pretty much outing yourself as a sexist. Now, about predetermined opinion, you're actually right. I care a lot about the judicial tradition of presumed innocence. This woman decided to be judge, jury and excutioner... In fact, it's worse than that, she decided to be judge, jury and executioner on a case she can't possible be objective about. So my predetermined opinion is that: If you have been wronged, go through the judicial system. Just tweeting or blogging doesn't have to pass any bar of truth or supply any evidence. That's just wrong. Very wrong. File a police report or you're full of shit.
- throwawaymonkie 9y ago
  Why was my comment flagged?
  - throwawaymonkie 9y ago
    Alright, I've tried writing my comment again. I've seen way more uncivil comments on Hacker News not being flagged, but then again, they were probably leftist, like calling Trump a retarded monkey or something. The flagging I got was pretty much just a hate-click by someone that disagreed with me.
    - throwawaymonkie 9y ago
      Wow! flagged again! Of course I will never get a reason why. There was no name-calling or anything.
- throwawaymonkie 9y ago

justifier 9y ago

The 'consensual sexual relations with him during those three days' is out of context The author also states: > Less than a week later, Jacob raped me in his apartment. Two of Jacob’s friends witnessed the assault, one other participated. > In June 2016, I published a description of my assault under the pseudonym “River” on jacobappelbaum.net alongside others’ accounts of harassment and assault. Why ignore some parts of a discussion and only discuss elements that satisfy your predetermined opinion? You also place the word rape condescendingly in quotes which I interpret as you insisting the definition of the word is important In that case what is your definition of rape? In 2012 the doj updated it's, unchanged since 1927, definition of rape: “the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition... >I'm just saying she put herself in a stupid situation Can you elaborate? What was the stupid situation? Are you asserting attendance absolves the attacker? > How is a future husband and wife supposed to meet? the Geraldo defense: https://youtu.be/-neJp7xRIPk https://youtu.be/-neJp7xRIPk An aside.. I apologise for bringing the levity of Colbert's comedy into this conversation but I feel sometimes comedy can be a tool to reach out to the people who enter a discussion with their minds obstinately predetermined

throwawaymonkie 9y ago
"I thought Jacob was a friend and engaged in consensual sexual relations with him during those three days. It took me five months to process and understand that Jacob had violated my trust and my body." You're argument is that the second sentence has nothing to do with the first? However, since I parsed it that way, and you seem to agree that having consensual sex and changing opinion later is not rape, then we agree on that. Happy days. The definition of rape you bring is retarded. What if a woman captures a male, forces an apple pie back and forth on his penis? By the definition you chose to bring to this discussion, that's not rape. You're pretty much outing yourself as a sexist. Now, about predetermined opinion, you're actually right. I care a lot about the judicial tradition of presumed innocence. This woman decided to be judge, jury and excutioner... In fact, it's worse than that, she decided to be judge, jury and executioner on a case she can't possible be objective about. So my predetermined opinion is that: If you have been wronged, go through the judicial system. Just tweeting or blogging doesn't have to pass any bar of truth or supply any evidence. That's just wrong. Very wrong. File a police report or you're full of shit.
throwawaymonkie 9y ago
Why was my comment flagged?
- throwawaymonkie 9y ago
  Alright, I've tried writing my comment again. I've seen way more uncivil comments on Hacker News not being flagged, but then again, they were probably leftist, like calling Trump a retarded monkey or something. The flagging I got was pretty much just a hate-click by someone that disagreed with me.
  - throwawaymonkie 9y ago
    Wow! flagged again! Of course I will never get a reason why. There was no name-calling or anything.
throwawaymonkie 9y ago