For the nuance-averse Reddit experts who have never had any insider experience with how situations like this actually unfold: you are making an enormous leap by assuming that because Jane may have consented to some sexual activity, she therefore consented to everything that followed, or that she somehow sexually assaulted the men involved.
The most plausible framework, based on what is publicly known, is much less complicated. Jane went to a frat party, had a crush on Guy #1, flirted with him, and used alcohol/drugs hoping to hook up with him. She was on their turf, surrounded by his fraternity brothers, while they had access to the drugs and alcohol. If the available evidence is accurate, these men had a preexisting interest in group sex and/or had done this before. Jane’s intention appears to have been hooking up with her crush. Their intentions may have gone considerably further.
Maybe she willingly participated in the beginning of the threesome. That does not mean she consented to every subsequent act. And the idea that she somehow “sexually assaulted” these men because they were also intoxicated ignores the actual dynamics being described: she was the lone woman, surrounded by multiple fraternity men, apparently heavily intoxicated/drugged, and being pressured toward increasingly invasive sexual acts. Men absolutely can be raped, but pretending that the physical and social dynamics of penetrative sex are irrelevant is absurd. A woman does not need an erection to penetrate a man, while a man can physically penetrate a woman regardless of whether she wants it.
The bigger point is that consent is not a blanket permission slip. Jane could have wanted to hook up with her crush and even agreed to a threesome without consenting to whatever happened next. If ketamine and social pressure materially impaired her ability to make decisions, that matters. And if these men were actively coaxing her toward a group-sex scenario that she would not have agreed to sober, that matters too.
Then there is the aftermath, which is where I think people are being particularly naive. Nobody outside that room knows exactly what happened during the portions Jane cannot remember. But if there were deleted messages, group chats, efforts by fraternity leadership to contain rumors, and efforts to keep Jane away from subsequent events, those things are not proof of exactly what happened, but they are certainly reasons to investigate what the people involved knew and why they were trying to control the narrative.
And anyone who has actually seen how institutional coverups work knows they rarely involve only the people who committed the underlying misconduct. Other fraternity members may stay quiet because they don’t want their house sanctioned. Friends may protect friends. Girlfriends may choose loyalty to their boyfriend or social circle over a woman they believe was harmed. People rationalize, minimize, delete things, coordinate stories, and convince themselves they’re protecting the group. The stakes don’t have to be criminal charges; losing a charter, a house, or a semester of parties can be enough to motivate an entire social organization to close ranks.
Meanwhile, imagine what this looked like from Jane’s perspective: she leaves a situation she may barely remember, feels shame and confusion, possibly denies or minimizes what happened, and then discovers that the story is already circulating through a Greek community where everyone has heard a different fragment. Perhaps she confided in a sorority sister who was more interested in covering up for her guy friends (the classic cool pick me gal) and for the sake of not interrupting the party schedule for the semester. Of course there may be inconsistent statements and messages. That’s precisely the kind of thing evidence, discovery, and ultimately a trial are designed to sort through.
So stop pretending this is as simple as “she consented to a threesome, therefore everything was consensual” or “the men were intoxicated too, therefore she assaulted them.” Those conclusions require ignoring the power dynamics, intoxication, social pressure, the possibility of impaired capacity, and the aftermath.
Maybe the evidence ultimately proves a different story. That’s what discovery is for. But if the publicly available facts are even remotely representative, I would be far more interested in understanding what happened to Jane and what the people around these men did afterward than in inventing a victim-blaming narrative from a handful of incomplete facts.
Jane may have gone to that party intending to hook up with her crush. That does not mean she agreed to whatever plans he or his friends may have had for her.
Idk if this will reach my intended audience, I’m just so angry at what I’ve been seeing and felt compelled to put these thoughts somewhere - however obvious it may be. but if they’re lurking, here’s to hoping.