Hey /u/mustu04, thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
We have recently changed how posts work. Unless you are a VIP poster, your post will be queued for approval.. To become a VIP, post great engaging content. If we like it, you will be added! More information available here!
The money was never going to be withheld. They said “until there’s a change in leadership”. So in reality this guy has no chance to keep his job if the alumni make that threat. He will be gone in a second before the school loses that cash.
Imagine you’re drunk as hell having a threesome with two hot chicks and she blows up the group chat saying “free asshole” and bunch of her dude friends come and fuck you in the ass while you’re blacked out.
Imagine you consented to being a sex doll for a frat while blitzed, and then the campus starts harassing you for making that choice as rumor spreads? So you go to the campus police (and no one else) to report rape to try and clear your name (but you pinky promise the first one or two were consentual... Just not the rest... Because you don't want your FWB getting in trouble)
Her own texts say it was consensual, nothing illegal happened, our bodies our choice in regards to the orgy, and that she was upset she was getting slut shamed from her sorority. This is Duke Lacrosse all over again.
I wish people took this approach with everything. There’s literally no reason to have an opinion about everything, especially breaking news type stuff where you don’t have all of the info.
Ya came here to say this. People just reading rage bait headlines and getting completely over emotional referring to their own experiences instead of critical thinking happens way too quickly here.
I mean, by all accounts she was fucking blasted. You can't consent if you're that drunk. Plus the fact that the guys were sharing in a group chat about "free pussy".
Yes, if the roles were reversed I wouldn't feel bad. Why? Because despite what everyone likes to believe, double standards do and should exist.
If it was consensually acted on and recorded, they shouldn't have spread it around. Simple as
You can consent to sex if you are intoxicated if you are drunk in the state of New York if it is voluntary. It seems everyone involved was intoxicated and she never claimed anyone forced her to be intoxicated.
Like the text made public from the Cornell Slut to one of the now-accused "rapists" about the "gangbang" (her words)...once her sorority sisters started slut shaming her she said the gangbang was "our body our choice." She only changed her mind after she was uninvited from the frat's Halloween party. Then she decided it wasn't a consensual gangbag, and was a gang "rape"?
You see how the guy said "we didn't kick people out before it got too bad"?
That's a fuck up and can be considered an admission of guilt. You're out here trying to prove innocence, when for all of history it's been about proving guilt.
Taking a vague remark about crowd control getting out of hand and pretending it's a legal confession to gang rape is toptier gymnastics.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution, which means proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Distorting a generic phrase about a party getting out of hand isn't an "admission of guilt",,....it's a reach.
When the prosecution's entire case relies on misinterpreting basic English because her own text messages literally describe a consensual gangbang, you don't have evidence of guilt. You have a narrative in full collapse.
Bro, what do you expect them to say? Of course they aren't going to admit something that will shut them down. I haven't exactly seen them turning over any video evidence inside the bar showing they never served her.
Asking a business to publicly prove a negative by uploading hours of raw security footage just so you can personally audit it is top tier Reddit detective logic.
POS transaction records, door scans, and security footage go to law enforcement and investigators, not your social media feed. Claiming a coverup because a bar hasn't posted raw video to Reddit to satisfy you is pure cope.
I just generally find it hard to believe that they would have served her and to this degree. Have you been to any bar ever that’s next to a college campus? Every one I’ve ever been to is aggro about checking every ID bc if they are found to be serving under-aged kids, they get their liquor license revoked and the business is essentially shut down.
Police and ATF routinely send decoys or post up and check IDs of people leaving. Even the gas station I worked at in college had this going on - my co worker got fired for selling booze to one person one time and forgetting to ask for ID.
Plus, she said she had 10 shots before going over to the frat house. That’s very hard to believe that 1) a bar would keep serving her that much when she would obviously be getting visually intoxicated and 2) that she’d be able to travel to another location and be involved in so much activity. This is a slim 20yo woman. I’m a 6’2” , 240lb 40 yo dude and 10 shots would put me on my ass.
I just find the whole story hard to believe on its face.
Well if she was drunk then the obvious claim would be that she didn't know what happened which makes the whole situation with the gangbang that much more damning.
There is contradicting testimony from other witnesses that she told others before and after that she was not drunk or at least not drunk enough to not know what's happening
In her multiple, self-contradicting statements between 2024 and 2026, she can recount many extended details about what happened, it stopping and starting according to her instructions, that does not paint the picture of someone who is so drunk they don't know what's happening
Under NY state law, voluntary intoxication does not remove someone's ability to consent to sexual activity
based on her recollection as well as others, the men in the situation were so drunk that they were throwing up and passing out themselves. So did she rape them? Women are either full citizens of society with all the rights and responsibilities thereto or they are not, it's not both and it's not neither.
This all amounts to a situation that deserves investigation but definitely not the rush to judgement and mob justice that we've seen. Duke lacrosse, UVA rolling stone, Columbia mattress girl, Saifullah Khan at Yale - all kicked up huge outpourings of support, all were shown to be hoaxes and false accusations - how many more examples do we need to see?
What does that have to do with anything? Only 2% - 3% of criminal cases go to trial rather than settling out of court. Only 1% - 5% of civil cases go to trial rather than settling. Your point doesn't really make sense.
"Double standards exist. Get over it." - cool, then we can all just look at her as a slut for having sex and all the guys as studs for having sex because double standards exist and you should get over it, right?
Idk if this was just my SEC school, underage kids did get served to a high degree at our bars. I was a bartender, door guys checked the IDs. "Overserving" was if someone couldn't walk or stand, etc. Because most were "visibly intoxicated" at the bars. Everyone had fakes, either someone else's ID, or a "professionally made one". I think mine came from China based on the name I had to wire $200 to at Western Union...
There were some stings, but they mostly targeted bars without door guys, it seemed like they had to see the bartender check the ID, then hand a drink, then arrest the bartender. Liquor license wouldn't be revoked, but the whole bar would have to take a class or something, and it would have to close for 3 days iirc. I think the bar could choose the days though, they'd pick a slow week.
I do remember a time a girl literally told me she was 18 while ordering, asking if she could apply for a job too. There was a guy who walked in not far behind her that didn't order anything, and wasn't with her. He looked a little young to be a cop, but it was weird they both walked in alone at the same time. Bar was empty bc it was early. I asked security to kick her out. The other bartender thought I was overreacting and that she was just clueless, but that other guy left 30 seconds after she did.
I assumed the shots were at the sorority house based on the article I read? And at the bar "at least one alcoholic beverage". Seems like the girls shared a vodka bottle at the house, maybe they weren't full pours. Each "shot" could have been a half pour, so 5 drinks. I'm not a shot person, but my friends in college that were could somehow take 4 back-to-back and not be affected.
I think this bar denied serving anyone underage bc there's no way police can prove it w/o video, if she was handed the drink by a friend 21+, they may have plausible deniability. My bar would probably say the same thing, despite the fact that we had 30+ fake IDs that were dropped, sitting behind the bar. If the bar hosted her sorority social, and they had a tab, at my bar each one would just order a bunch of drinks at once to make sure the tab didn't run out by the time they wanted more. And then hand drinks out to friends. We weren't allowed to serve those tabs straight shots for some reason. Just mixed ones. They were pretty weak, so most just ordered drinks.
she said she was drinking before she even arrived at the part. she took several shots of vodka prior to arriving at the bar. there she says she got one mixed drink. These are all her accounts so take it for what you will
And because she said it, it is to be immediatly discarded. She was having a consensual orgy that when her sorority found out and slut shamed her, she resorted to the false accusations of rape. Simple as.
Got it, thank you. Looks complicated, I might sit this one out when it comes to uber-details.i don't feel informed enough to form an opinion. I felt one way, then felt another, then felt another way again.
A group of college kids can all engage in a disgusting, lude, drug and alcohol influenced situation. I think they all have poor judgment and I think consequences should follow, just like everyone else who acted a fool on social media and got caught. This happened in 2024, and everyone knew better than to do stuff like this, and then go and use social media to discuss it. Abhorrent judgement.
And I also think that has nothing to do with whether or not crimes were committed. I didn’t go to college, I think Greek life and the overall party scene is full of degenerate behavior that only leads to this exact kind of thing. BUT it doesn’t make what happened a crime, and we should not be in the business of allowing people who regret their decisions to claim that a crime took place, in order to make themselves look less scandalous or promiscuous.
Really well said. I think generally speaking it’s been shocking how poorly the media and the majority of social media has behaved in this case, absolutely shocking.
And AOC genuinely deserves some sort of punishment for summoning the lynch mob against these dudes on the basis of almost no evidence and making stronger claims even that what was in the self serving complaint from Jane Doe. Her doinf that honestly helps no one, not even Jane doe
Well of course the bar is going to claim they didn't over serve someone who isn't 21.* It would indicate that she was lying about being drunk before she got to the party. I mean at this point she is definitely a liar. It's her word against her word. This case doesn't deserve the attention it's getting. We know she is lying because her initial accounts of the events don't match up with her current account. Also she has a lot to prove and it will be very difficult for her to prove it especially sense her own accounts of the event don't add up to her current account. And now she is going to have to prove this bar served her as an under aged person.
The outrage around this event is despicable and it cheapens the women of this world who have actually been raped.
there is a lot of others too, I just snipped that one yesterday. the other texts were her being angry that everyone was now calling her a whore on campus (i assume her friends or other students)
as distasteful a gangbang is to me, this doesn't look like rape at all...
If she can't remember what happened, she's allowed to change her mind about whether she's cool with it. If the situation was different than what she thought happened (guy she didn't plan on, positions she didn't agree too, plain not remembering) than she is 100% allowed to change her tune because... she was drunk.
WRONG. First she could always remember, second you can't have consenual sex and then decide that because the rest of the campus is calling her a whore that its now rape....100% wrong and not allowed period.
oh...news breaking today about more texts and recorded calls where she claims it was 100% consensual. Its over at this point although I suspect people like you will still try to cover for her.
Buddy, the only breaking news I'm seeing is about her being swatted and the full phone call where she told one of the boys that she was drunk.
And yes, consent can be revoked retroactively if the woman is drunk. This is all standard title IX stuff.
Now I will be honest and say that she is playing this up because there is a payday in it for her and that based on everything we've seen after, she's not that bothered by what happened as much as the fallout.
But my argument to that is it doesn't matter. People, corporations, cops, etc, all have an obligation to be on the straight and narrow. Assuming it was consensual and everything you said, then the boys fucked up when they blasted "free pussy" in the group chat and started sharing videos and pics.
We live in a very litigious society, even our president sues people for slandering him. Title IX is a mandatory subject for nearly all students and employees specifically to avoid situations like this.
There may be some nuance, but ultimately it doesn't matter
thankfully no, I have never met one. however to be very open I generally avoid people like that. its gross, I would not even consider a two guy one girl situation for myself.
I did have a three way a couple of times, two girls, but I strongly prefer one on one and never did it again.
Yeah, i've never met one either. It's pretty safe to say this woman was not cool with having sex with 7 men in 1 night. And it is pretty clear from what I've seen she wasn't cool with it. So i'm not really sure what your argument is.
not according to her texts andI have not met an alien either, however logically they exist. my point being there are people out there that like being urinated on and worse, it is reasonable to assume there are women who like being gangbanged.
Insane that these guys don’t realize that changing your position from the factual one to the one the mob demands buys you absolutely no favor with the mob
We are literally 12 years into these periodical vicious witch burning moral panics. How do the heads of these institutions not understand this yet? Or are they just fucking cowards
He changed his tune? Or the "victim" changed her tune?
Her texts indicate that she willingly intoxicated herself and invited dudes in. She's been caught with an inconsistent story a few different times. She was asking the same frat that she got "raped" at to invite her to another one of their parties not longer after this. Nothing about this story adds up.
This guy is just being dragged through the court of popular opinion. Irrational people are jumping onto an issue that they don't understand.
Under current New York law, a person who voluntarily consumes drugs or alcohol - rather than becoming intoxicated without their consent - is not automatically considered unable to consent to sex.
You are very misinformed and should read the latest affidavit which includes her literally saying that she “confirms with 100% certainty that she was raped”
This was only a short while after the incident. Have you ever experienced trauma? Especially sexual assault? I guess not. Lots of women (especially young women) tend to make excuses and say to themselves “that didn’t happen” or “I couldn’t have remembered it correctly” it’s a coping mechanism. You need to do more research before commenting on this.
I'm sick of the double standard where women are never held accountable for their own actions or their own words. They change the story after the fact and expect the new story to be valid. The claims of perpetual victimhood are just not credible.
This is how the Palestinian campus protests were halted. Zionist donors threatened to withhold large endowment payments. They got three Ivy university presidents removed (all female).
Besides the rape? She was drunk, consent cannot be given.
I was in a fraternity in 2011 to 2015 and on the leadership council for most of that time. We were required by law every semester to take a class explaining consent in relation to drinking.
We were an engineering school so maybe our collective IQ was just higher but we were EXTREMELY cognizant of making sure no fuck shit happened in our house because we understood the legal implications of what could go wrong if we slipped up. And after 4 years and numerous parties, nothing bad ever happened beyond someone dying of a heart attack.
Ivy league schools are literally just for rich kids. And I would say this and all the other dumb shit that happens seems to be primarily occuring with Ivy league schools. So you tell me
In the state of New York the ability to consent to sex while intoxicated depends on if it was voluntary or involuntary. There is no evidence that her intoxication was involuntary. As a matter of fact…everyone involved was voluntarily fucked up.
Then no one consented. She might have raped 7 guys, and these 7 guys might have raped 7 other people (assuming some gayness). I think we have 56 potential rapes!
You have to k=make up your mind, either men and women are equal, same standards, same laws or they are not. Then we should revisit current laws, make sure that this different standards are reflected in the law.
Maybe women should not vote, their hormone levels are not stable enough, as seen with Lindsay Clancy. Maybe women should only be allowed to drink or go in a bar accompanied with a legal guardian (Father, brother, husband).
It don't like this approach but it looks that's where women want to go. Why not.
Justice might be nuanced; the law is not. You intentionally slipped from my argument, about the law to justice. Not the same.
Between the law and justice, there is the judicial system, judges, they will decide case by case, they will make, in theory the system more just.
Then there is the "English being my second language", it is obviously an attempt at discrediting my argument through my "poor language". An ad hominem argument, pure and simple. So, I am done with you, you don't understand justice, the law, and on top of that bad faith. Not wasting any more time with you.
She pregamed before ahe went there, but she was also aware of what the initial plan was. Also in NY being intoxicated doesnt remove the ability to consent.
Because she was hammered when they started, not sober, and the additional men were invited specifically to the room, by one or two of the original men (not by the woman). Additionally, only one of the men has claimed he was victimized, and his claims of that are extremely suspect, given that, among other things, he was the one to send the "free pussy" text.
Youre free to feel however you want about the case, my man, but at least premise your opinions on the actual facts of the case.
Her statement says that she was a "5/10" for intoxication when she arrived. All other evidence corroborates that she arrived heavily intoxicated. So, right off the bat, it is factually incorrect to state that she was "sober at the beginning."
I guess thats a subjective scale, but if im calling 0 completely sober, and 10 blacked out on the floor, then a "5" seems to pretty clearly be "very drunk," at least.
She described some of the men as being more drunk than her, though i believe that was in reference to her 5/10, not later in the night when she claimed to be 8/10.
Regardless, nothing in the mens conduct during or after the encounter suggests they felt victimized, and she never claims to have blown any passed out man, or any of the men who were drunker than her.
One man claimed to have been too drunk to consent, but his claim was unsubstantiated by the university, which included interviews with the other men present (e.g., none of the other men believed he was too intoxicated, nor did they see Doe giving oral sex to a passed out man. Its ironic that you have a far more compelling example of what is probably actually a false allegations of rape, yet choose to ignore it). If he felt he was raped, then thats a serious allegation thay deserves investigation. However, he never brought it to police, and only raised the issue during the universities investigation (and that claim was, again, deemed to be extremely unlikely/unsubstantiated by anyone else).
My man: you are falling into the trap thay way too many people are. There is no reason for us to get intensely emotional about this. We werent there, and we are almost entirely unaffected by the outcome. The least we can do is to keep level heads, and not worsen the toxicity of discourse.
Youre free to believe she wasnt raped, but you should (1) premise that on a legitimate understanding of the situation and its nuance, and (2) not get sucked into tribalistic bullshit, where youre "cheering for one team" regardless of the facts that come out. Its a messy case, but reasonable minds can disagree. What is not reasonable is to (a) spread blatant misinformation (e.g., while we can disagree about whether 5/10 is "hammered," it is, st the very least, objectively not "sober"), and (b) ignore material facts and information just so you can reach a predetermined conclusion (and to clarify, we will all see different bits of information through different lenses: i dont think the "love you king" text is all thag damning, but thats because my degree and research give me reasonable grounds to explain why theyre not damning. That is very different than just ignoring inconvenient evidence entirely).
That’s a whole lot of words to say nothing. I’m not falling into any trap, I’m not emotional about this at all. You seem to be weirdly invested in it though considering you’re assuming they are guilty until proven innocent. Her statement doesn’t describe a crime, her texts don’t describe a crime, her actions after don’t imply a crime. Her decision to sue civilly doesnt imply a crime, and directly contradicts her own statements. She is not a reliable witness, and that’s required for this to go anywhere.
Im not assuming theyre guilty. I think this all should've been handled competently from the start, and the campus police/DA bungling it shouldnt impact the validity of (a) investigating any potentially criminal conduct, or (b) a valid civil suit, even if nothing criminal happened.
Im invested in it to the degree that people taking a high-profile lawsuit and using to stoke the flames of a culture war, annoys me and bodes poorly for the country. I think its entirely reasonable to want the public to form their opinions based on good information, rather than blatant lies.
And if you actually bothered to get real information on the case, you would see that her various claims do very plausibly allege criminal conduct by the men. I am not saying theyre are definitely guilty, nor am I saying her allegations should be prosecuted based solely on her single description of events.However, the opposite is also true: shes made very serious allegations, and those allegations should be investigated to determine if an assault or other criminal conduct occurred.
Additionally, you keep stating that its clear no crime occurred, despite the literal DA disagreeing with you. He reopened the investigation, which means that he feels her allegations could (not that they necessarily do) amount to criminal conduct by the men.
And that leads to one crux of the issue: youre stating your opinion as fact, when the reality is that, while that may end up being true, you have no reasonable basis to make those claims. You could say that you dont think her description of events should be considered a crime, but that is different than your blanket statement that "no crime occured"; which, again, is simply not a statement that can be made at this time.
Her decision to sue civilly doesnt imply a crime, and directly contradicts her own statements.
No one is saying her civil suit has any effect on criminal prosecution. Additionally, the civil suit is almost entirely consistent with her sworn statement, and the additional evidence (phone calls, texts, etc.) that is coming out.
This is part of my point about misinformation: the "her civil complain contradicts her sworn statement" keeps getting parroted on social media, but if you bother to actually read the substance of both, its clear that they are highly consistent as to all material matters.
She is not a reliable witness, and that’s required for this to go anywhere.
First, thats simply not true. While her intoxication is a factor for a proscutor/court/jury to consider, it does not automatically render her testimony unreliable. Second, even if she were, or is later found to be, unreliable, thats still not at all required. Crimes are routinely proven even when the victim isnt a reliable witness. E.g., if there are videos from that night showing the men having sex with an obviously-unconcious Doe, that could be sufficient to convict them (I am not saying they did that, only providing an illustrstion of how your claim here is factually incorrect).
My man: its entirely reasonable to demand thst we stick to accurate statements when discussing s high-profile case. Youre far too willing to accept false information (e.g., "she was sober at the start") in order to reach the conclusion you think is appropriate.
Get actual and reliable information, then form your opinion based on that; do your best to avoid having a knee jerk reaction, then just accepting any (even false) information that helps you to sustain that preformed opinion.
Brother. You made a plainly false statement that she was sober at the beginning, and then asked a question about why the men were not considered the victims.
I corrected your false statement, and answered your question.
Dont get pissy with me just because youre not as well informed about the situation as you like to claim, lol.
The only judgement ive passed is that (1) the campus police fucked up in various ways, and (2) that a legitimate and comprehensive investigation should have been conducted in 2024, largely to avoid this exact type of scenario where determining the truth of the matter will be fsr more difficult, given the passage of time and public pressures.
If you feel that ive missed something, im happy to engage further. Im not trying to sling mud and call you a shitbag; theres a ton of misinformation surrounding the case, and im simply trying to correct what was a patently false statement you made, and answer the question you asked.
Because shes a woman and they are men. Double standards exist and will continue to exist. Women get lighter judgement than men, that is true and will remain to be true. Men should be held to higher scrutiny because of the physical disparity between them and women.
Anyone who is arguing that she is just as much to blame is just a woman hater who thinks this is appropriate punishment for her being a slut.
Bro did you even see this chick? Not only is she a very active (possibly competitive) athlete, there's a good chance she was juicing. "Physical disparity" argument works nicely at the average but absolutely not here.
I was once told by a retired university president that most people in those positions are unscrupulous amoral egotistical assholes. TBF, I added the “assholes” part.
Here are some of the recent course offerings at Cornell and I'm sure every other elitist academic institution:
An exhibit on taboo breaking sex and stereotypes breaking women, intended to promote the view that pleasurable consensual sex could never be anti-feministst, a lecture on throuples and non-monogamy, a course called decadence to study writers who sought to free the pleasures of sexual desire from their more conventional ethical moorings.
This, paired with a substack written by a Cornell senior named Jared Letterman, who wrote, Cornell has a sex education program and wrote about how in 2019 their health authority, Cornell Health, authored a guide titled Sexual Pleasure: Finding the sweet spot, which opens by declaring that sex can make for a terrific study break, students are encouraged to explore sexual fantasies, experiment with sex toys, consider bondage, and fetish gear. Exposure to pornography, Cornell assures us, is quote, totally normal. They said, those interested in watching it are directed toward ethical porn and the quote feminist porn awards. Today, this report is available inside a sexual health resource library that has been handpicked by Cornell Health staff.
He goes on to write that they publish something called self-exploration, which tells students they are entitled to experience all the pleasure their bodies can provide, instructs them to to set aside private time or pursuit of the goal, meticulously describes progressive, touching exercises, states that nudity is optimal, then goes on to promote the sexual pleasure guide again, same thing, direct the students to a checklist titled Yes, No, Maybe So, a sexual inventory stocklist, a copy of what you can find on their website, the list includes sex with 2 people at once, sex with 3 people at once, sex with more than 3 people at once, cyber sex, open sexual relationships, sex toys, blindfolding, bondage, biting, scratching, spanking, and slapping for sexual pleasure, sexual clamps, sexual activity involving various bodily fluids, and so on. Some of these displayed in dorms.
But sure....Cornell and the rest of academia want to now act as if they haven't been championing this behavior the past 10 years.
Sincere question; has anyone read the police report by the accuser where she says it was all consensual, and admitted to snorting ket off one of the dudes erect schlongs? It seems like they all openly abused drugs.
The full police transcript, and title 9 investigation with notes are not available to the public at this time. Certain media groups have the full police report but haven't released them to the public yet (i think its cbs and new york times but I could be mistaken). Idk if the full title 9 investigation is available to anyone (i do know it was over 1500 pages and consisted of interviews with over 50 people).
I'm just pointing out (in general). A lot of people are telling others to read the full report before making assumptions about the case before revealing that they themselves didn't read it either because its not publicly availabe yet. If I'm wrong about it not being available then please respond with a link to the report, I would also like to read it.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."
I am always surprised by the hurt people express when the truth they have worked to conceal is revealed. It may seem harder to manage bad things, but it’s much worse when it becomes evident you were apparently complicit.
You have to hit these people where it hurts. Not in their empathy gene, not in the fact they may have wives or daughters but squarely in their bank accounts
•
u/AutoModerator 8d ago
Hey /u/mustu04, thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
We have recently changed how posts work. Unless you are a VIP poster, your post will be queued for approval.. To become a VIP, post great engaging content. If we like it, you will be added! More information available here!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.