"Based on the findings of the special examiner, the ex-boyfriend was issued a disciplinary warning. (Such a warning does not go on his transcript, though most law schools and medical schools do ask Brandeis for information about students’ conduct.) He was also ordered to complete a program on sexual assault prevention."


I can't remember if it was an article or the lawsuit, but the leak to the employer most likely came from the ex-boyfriend.

SO INFORMED. SUCH A GOOD BOY.

ahahah so we've backpedaled from it'll never happen to it didn't result in an expulsion.

walk it back.

This thread is just an ongoing free roll for the rape apologists. 1000 women get raped, men get away with it, police ignore a case, victims going to class with their rapists.... Nothing to see here, business as usual... "of course rape is bad guys".

Someone makes a mistake the other way... Football spiking time! Booya!

Lets just to accept from the beginning that mistakes will occasionally happen - there's no reason to look for examples let along argue about them much.

Like just about everything else, the occurrence of mistakes is not sufficient reason not to do the right thing but reluctance to acknowledge mistakes will occasionally happen is counter-productive.

The fact that people rape and get away with it is not a valid reason to define rape as waking up your significant other with a kiss.

The guy accused of rape by the mattress girl has filed a suit against Columbia:
The proceedings are supposed to be confidential.

In addition, based on the text messages that have become available the only reasonable conclusion is Sulkowicz is most likely a liar and terrible person. It's a Virginia level hoax.

Without going to the source material yet, let's see if I can guess what's going on here: ikestoys, based on his life of being a straight white male who's experienced no significant trauma, totally knows how a rape victim is supposed to act after being raped and can see right through that lying bitch (and the two other lying bitches that filed claims against this guy, man Columbia is just full of liberal hoax-spinners). In fact, his seeing through her is so iron-clad that it's the only reasonable conclusion.

Did I win?

(as an aside, I love that ikes picks this up from...Reason's blog, it's just so perfect)

oh please try to defend that garbage goofy.

Sigh goofy you tease. Please defend that. Tell me how a rape 'victim' can't be judged for telling her 'rapist' to do exactly what he did. Tell me how a rape 'victim' can't be judged for maintaining an amicable relationship for months with her boyfriend 'rapist' after the 'rape', until, of course, he tells her he he wants to see other people. Tell me how about how I'm the crazy person here, when not only the police and prosecutors think there's no crime, but also the school.

Please go ****ing on. Pick this hill to fight on.

Then you can defend the school newspaper publicly naming the boy who was accused of rape but cleared. Then you can defend the Sulkowicz breaking every privacy rule about the process while the school does nothing.

Please do it.

LOL you've been sitting here for hours on a beautiful Saturday waiting for me to respond to you? Your pathological need for attention is pathetic.

I already nailed it ikes, your straight white male rage at your fellow bros being harmed here is palpable and transparent. Look at all the seething contempt you have here for the notion that a woman can be raped by someone she's seeing. I don't need to respond to you, the fact that you've been sitting here for hours consumed by my post is quite enough for me.

That bro might not have raped the mattress girl, but let's face it, he was no angel

Oh goofy, I totally understand someone can be raped by someone they're seeing. The evidence doesn't point towards that, which is why no one has judged this girl to be credible at any stage of the proceedings.

Seriously, no one. And for good reason. She claims he raped her by forcibly ****ing her in the ass. Problem is, she messaged him telling him to do exactly that. She also messaged him for months afterwards. She only cried rape after he made it clear that he wanted nothing to do with her romantically anymore. You know what that is? A genuinely disturbed person.

Now, in this case, the system got it right. She's been shot down by everyone. The problem is that her case was believed unconditionally despite that... and this kid suffered needless abuse because of it. All the while Sulkowicz is breaking every privacy rule that these proceedings are supposed to afford. You're not seriously supporting going after someone definitively cleared of sexual assault right? I know you're not that terrible.

ikes, you know how you have this tendency to post about things as if you have a grasp of the facts when you actually have no idea what you're talking about?

LOL, you really thought this time would be different didn't you? You finally thought that Reason wasn't going to deceive you into arguing something stupid on the internet. Oh ikesy.

that fits perfectly with what I said goofy. You're blinded by your white armor.

LOOOOOOOOOL

ikes thinks a joke about anal sex is permanent consent for someone to **** you there months later

incredible

I am genuinely confused to why people can't say rape is a large problem and at the same time acknowledge that innocent people were smeared in the duke case, the uva incident, and this mattress girl thing.

Being falsely accused of rape is not suddenly ok if the accused is a rich white frat douche who kicks his dog at shouts racist ****. It is not ok to drag an innocent man through this because 10 other guilty white frat douches got away with rape.

No, I don't even think it's consent for 5 minutes later. It is, however, evidence against sulkowicz. It's also evidence that wasn't allowed to be introduced in Sulkowicz's case. The Facebook messages after weren't allowed either. He was still not found culpable. The messages add additional evidence that make it clear that no rape occurred.

The entirety of this case is not based on the claim of anal sex texts. You railing against it like this is indicative of how ****ed your argument is.

Again, I gotta ask you.... do you support going after an accused person who has been found not culpable at a 50% standard despite having strong evidence withheld? Do you support retaliating against someone who wins a title ix complaint case?

Hahaha what? Evidence of what, exactly?

We all know what happened here, you read the Reason article and accepted it unflinchingly and totally thought that the "**** me in the butt" message was related to their later sexual encounter, because you read shoddy libertarian/men's rights blogs without ever questioning them. Even your "It's a Virginia level hoax" line is lifted straight from their article. But please, dance for us ikesy, try to explain how that message is relevant enough for you to have mentioned it in two (previously, now three) posts as some piece of damning evidence.

It is related to their sexual encounter. Anal sex is something they clearly talked about. I nowhere state that it happened right before the encounter. You're making up positions wholesale in attempt to white knight this girl, and it's pathetic.

Again, why are you coming out in favor of retaliation for a title ix proceeding?

Hahaha, let's check the tape:

So it's not an expression of consent and it's something they only "talked about" (if one random comment well before their relationship became physical and several months before the alleged rape is even "talking about" anal sex) - yet earlier your argument was literally that she told him to **** her in the ass, obviously she wanted it:

LOL good job good effort ikes, keep walking that back.

And this quote, wow:

in regards to a silly comment made months before the incident - hey look, she said "**** me in the butt" six months ago, clearly she deserved it and clearly I can now call her a 'victim' in air quotes - is just absolutely disgusting human behavior. Before I just assumed you had accepted the Reason article as truth on its face (lol) and you made that argument in error, but if you're claiming you knew all along the proper context of that quote and still made that above post, I guess you're just a truly terrible person.

And we're left with pretending like the anal text message is the only evidence, strawmanning away while stoutly ignoring the entirety of evidence and results.

Good show goofy. Are you going to openly come out and support title ix retaliation? Or just dance around it.

Goofy, based on what you know about this case so far, do you think there is a greater than >50% chance that Sulkowicz was raped?

lol this dude is like an ikes understudy or something.

Is that the point, dude? I know you're mostly here out of the brotherhood of medical professionals and just want to suck up to ikes, but who gives a ****? No one has said every rape claim is accurate, that no false rape claims exist.

So I'll flip this one you: what thesis are you building towards here? Pretend goofy says "<50%, and I've studied the case enough to make the estimate valid". So?

What's your point, child?

LOL that was a rhetorical question, we all know you're just upset people are being mean to ikes about his reading chain emails.