At Stanford, another woman who refused to take responsibility for her own self-destructive acts cried rape and is determined to destroy a man’s life.
Rape, real rape, is a terrible crime. It’s a violent assault against a person’s bodily integrity that attacks the very core of their being. To the extent that women are the most common victims (outside of prisons), it’s a ferociously misogynistic display of the worst masculine brute force.
True rape is an act that deserves to be treated with the utmost seriousness in the criminal law system. I’m not an advocate of the death penalty for it, but I support long prison sentences (unlike the delicate hand slaps Nordic countries are meting out to their new Muslim overlords when the latter practice their culturally sanctioned rape against the dhimmi women in their new caliphates).
Well I am ferociously opposed to real rape — the forcible sexual penetration of another human being — I am equally ferociously opposed to fake cries of rape. Long-time readers know that I was absolutely furious over the Brock Turner matter: older woman goes to frat party, gets black-out drunk, makes out with an equally drunk younger man, he’s later caught rutting over her unconscious body (which may have been clothed in the relevant places), and his life is destroyed.
Both Turner and the woman were stupid, stupid, stupid to get that drunk, but to the extent there’s no evidence one way or another whether she consented, and it’s obvious he was every bit as incapacitated as she was, it’s outrageous that she gets sympathy and he gets ruined. The fact that this pathetic modern women “feels” like a victim is of infinitely less consequence than the complete wipe-out of Turner’s life.
Which leads me to a story in today’s San Francisco Chronicle, which interestingly enough again involves a so-called “rape” at Stanford. Here’s the premise, straight from the Chronicle:
After Stanford University concluded that one of its students sexually assaulted a classmate, campus officials imposed what they called a very serious sanction: a suspension of two academic quarters.
The victim said it felt like a second assault.
“Providing my rapist with a gracious invitation back to Stanford pending a brief period of ‘reflection’ disrespects myself and the moral stature of Stanford as an institution,” Sinéad Talley wrote on Dec. 20, 2016, in her unsuccessful appeal. She wanted Stanford to expel the man she said had been her friend until he raped her while she was in a drunken stupor.
Stanford reported the assault in 2016 to campus police, as required by state law. But Talley chose not to pursue the case through the criminal justice system. Instead, like many college students who report sexual assault, she turned to her university’s internal justice system.
Did you catch that carefully oblique reference to a “drunken stupor”? Was it his? Was it Talley’s? How stuporous was that person? Well, you have to read through paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs about how rapey Stanford is and how Talley suffered to get to the real story — which is that this young woman got drunk and has no idea what happened:
Rush week was in full force at Stanford in April 2014 when a friend of Talley’s accepted a bid from his favorite fraternity. He invited her to the celebration.
In a written account she gave to Stanford investigators, Talley said she felt exhausted on the night of the party and hadn’t been sleeping well or eating enough for some time. She had a few drinks at the party. Her next memory was waking up the next morning naked and sore, aware that the student was in her room, and aware when he “slipped out,” according to the account, a long letter she wrote to the student two years later detailing her experience.
“I didn’t report what you did,” Talley wrote. “I refused to acknowledge that it had been rape for weeks afterward.”
She blamed herself.
“I made excuses for you, convinced myself that I could have consented in my blacked-out state, cursed myself for binge drinking, questioned whether I had given you the wrong idea. I held onto that shame and guilt, as though it was ever mine to carry,” she wrote.
Then she learned something that changed her mind. The student had spread the news among their friends that they’d had a “hook-up,” Talley wrote.
She waited two years, then reported the assault to the university days before graduating in 2016.
Let me rephrase: Talley drank so much she blacked out; she then woke up in bed with her friend feeling trashy, which is entirely appropriate; two years later she heard that the friend said they “hooked-up,” which implies that he understood the sex to be consensual; and she got angry at him and cried “rape.” Except despite having an epiphany two years after the fact that she was “raped,” when all physical evidence is gone and her memory never existed, she doesn’t go to the police, which is the appropriate step for a vile crime but, instead whines to the man-hating Title IX campus authorities, only to be enraged that her case is so weak that even the Title IX vampires are unwilling completely to destroy a man’s life. I think that about sums it up.
To fully expose my anger at this type of man-hating woman, I think it’s worthwhile repeating Talley’s alleged original thoughts after her hook-up, thoughts that strike me as entirely correct: “I made excuses for you, convinced myself that I could have consented in my blacked-out state, cursed myself for binge drinking, questioned whether I had given you the wrong idea. I held onto that shame and guilt, as though it was ever mine to carry.”
First, Talley’s quite correct that she probably consented, but simply has no memory of doing so. That’s the whole problem with black-outs. In that regard, here’s an interesting story out of Australia:
*Woman charged over bizarre oral sex incident on Sydney train has ‘no memory’
*Chantell Gordon, 34, has been charged with willful and obscene exposure
*She allegedly masturbated on train carriage and performed oral sex on a man
*When approached on Monday, Gordon said ‘I can’t remember’ the incident
The woman charged over a bizarre oral sex incident with a man on a train claims she has ‘no memory’ of the sordid encounter, and says she is trying to turn her life around.
Chantell Gordon, 34, was charged with willful and obscene exposure and offensive behaviour in a public place after the alleged daylight romp in Wollongong, south of Sydney, on December 14.
Wollongong Local Court heard last week the public romp began when Gordon allegedly approached her co-accused, Shane Brennan, on the train platform and asked for sex.
Brennan, who was also charged over the incident, said he declined but claimed Gordon started masturbating on the train carriage. The father-of-three then said he allowed her to perform oral sex on him because ‘I can’t help myself’.
When Daily Mail Australia approached Gordon on Monday for her side of the story, she admitted she has a problem with drugs, but flatly said ‘I can’t remember’ when the sex incident was put to her.
Gordon clearly has serious substance abuse issue, which makes her pathetic. My point in reciting the story isn’t to hammer Gordon but is to say that people under the influence engage in affirmative actions that they wouldn’t do if they were sober and that they may not remember later — but it doesn’t mean that, as to third parties, they weren’t manifesting showing consent (or even sexual aggression). On the flip side, I know a man who, when blind drunk, assaulted a 14-year-old and had no memory after the fact. The crime came to light later when the girl, who was sober at the time (of course) and had an intact memory, handed her soiled clothes over to authorities. She’d been so traumatized at the time that, rather than washing or tossing her clothes, she’d stuffed them in the back of her closet. He quite appropriately went to jail.
Second, getting back to Talley’s accurate enough assessment of her own conduct immediately after the event, she “cursed herself for binge drinking.” So you see, the Chronicles‘ discrete reference to a “drunken stupor” and Talley’s own narrative that she felt ill but had a “few drinks” at the party were red herrings. “Binge drinking” is a very specific activity, that involves getting blind drunk on a routine, albeit intermittent basis — as in partying to black out every weekend. This is was not a woman who was getting ill and who reacted badly to a beer. This was a woman who, by her own admission, drank to excess on a regular basis.
Third, what about Talley’s worry that she gave her “assaulter” the “wrong idea”? I’d say that it’s entirely possible that a woman who routinely got blind drunk and, in at least one instance, had no memory of events, did give her sexual partner the “wrong idea” by enthusiastically, or at least agreeably, engaging in sexual activity with him. The fact that she felt bad about it later is not his fault. The fact that he spoke of it later as a consensual hook-up in a day-and-age of hook-ups, as opposed to courtships and committed relationships, is not his fault.
Fourth, there’s something Talley doesn’t say about the trigger for her reporting the guy. The paper simply says she reported him before she graduated in Spring 2016. That same Spring, she was involved in a heated Facebook fight because she went completely ballistic over a photograph of a young woman who took a sexily posed photograph in a reconstructed Yurok Indian House at an open-to-the-public open air museum. You can read about it here, in Talley’s own exhausting, impenetrable, identity-politics, victim-centric, academic jargon. In other words, Talley wasn’t in a happy place when she decided to destroy a man.
At this point, putting aside Talley’s reasonable self-blame and her (to my mind) unreasonable decision to accuse someone of rape despite her failure to know the facts, one can still ask what if, maybe, just maybe, the guy did in fact rape Talley — that is, forcibly sexually penetrate her against her will or when she was manifestly unconscious? Bad as it is to say this, he still gets a pass because as even Stanford realized, Talley’s black-out left her without the ability to point to any criminal intent on his part — including, per California’s requirement, his knowledge that she was drunk — and her two-year delay meant that there was no physical evidence to corroborate her story.
Then there’s Talley’s refusal to report the alleged rape to the police. I suspect she didn’t because she knew there was no evidence of any actual, true, heinous crime. Talley, however, excuses her decision by blaming identity politics:
Talley said her experience as an American Indian influenced her decision to report the assault to the university instead of law enforcement. “As a Karuk person, I’ve seen a lot of police violence. I’ve seen the system fail, and I don’t have a lot of trust.”
This is an interesting point given that Talley may have admitted elsewhere that she’s got minimal Native American blood and had no connection to her tribal heritage when growing up. I say “may” because the article from which this quote is drawn is so confusingly written and formatted, I’m not certain it’s Talley speaking. However, it seems to be Talley’s voice because it’s the material in the article with quotation marks and it follows immediately after Talley’s photograph:
“It’s taken a long time for me to get outside of the blood quantum construct of thinking. I’m low blood quantum, and my family was disconnected for a while before we came back to the river. It’s been a returning process. Learning more about history and the fact that blood quantum is a European concept and that’s not how Native people determined who was a community member and who was not helped. When it comes down to it, blood quantum doesn’t mean anything. It’s your connection to place, it’s your kinship ties and how involved you are in the community. It has a lot to do with a lot of things, but indigeneity doesn’t have to do with blood quantum. You can know that and you can feel that, but they’re two different things. For me it’s taken a long time to feel that.”
It’s also unlikely that Talley’s Native American identity left her actually afraid to go to the police. Instead, I suspect her goal all along was to erase the bad feelings she had about herself over her bad conduct by getting the guy in trouble. Her problem was that she knew, based upon a complete lack of evidence that the sex was non-consensual, the police would laugh her out of the building. So she did what every self-respecting, binge-drinking, man-hating, hooking-up SJW does — she took the matter to the school’s Title IX committee, confident that the committee members would agree that an absence of any evidence of wrongdoing was insufficient when it came to destroying a young man’s life.
Thanks to California law, a person who claims to have been drunk and had sex has established a prima facie case that she (or he) was raped. Think about that: In California, stone-cold sober Highway Patrol officers who stop drivers must give them scientific breathalyzers tests or recognized field sobriety tests before concluding that they are intoxicated enough to have violated the law. Also in California, though, the ordinary layperson, even if he or she has also been drinking, is supposed to intuit the other party’s intoxication as a prelude to sex. Intuit wrong, and that person has a one-way ticket to prison:
In December 2016, a three-member hearing panel — chosen from a pool of faculty, staff and graduate students — concluded unanimously, as required, that Talley’s former friend had sexually assaulted her.
“The preponderance of the evidence indicates that (he) committed sexual assault by virtue of (her) state of incapacitation,” the panel wrote.
Talley asked that the student be expelled, noting that “since I was drunk, I could not give consent.”
In cases of intoxication, California criminal law says a rape has occurred if the person is prevented from resisting because he or she is drunk — and that the accused knew or reasonably should have known.
Stanford’s policy in 2014, the year of Talley’s assault, said that a person must consent to sexual intercourse — and that a drunk person cannot give consent.
The student argued in his written statement that he believed Talley had consented.
“Sadly, I was intoxicated, too, so my judgment was impaired,” he wrote in his defense. “I had no idea that she was in a blackout. … I thought I was having consensual sex.”
Even a Title IX committee at Stanford, though, seems to have some limits, which is why the young man, rather than having his life completely destroyed, had it only partially sundered:
The panel wrote: “We believe a reasonable, sober person would have recognized (Talley’s) incapacitation, her inability to understand the nature of the sexual situation, and thus her inability to give consent.”
The panel agreed the sexual assault occurred but that the student did not know she was intoxicated and decided that expelling him was “not appropriate.”
Instead, it imposed a two-quarter suspension, with training in consent and the effects of alcohol.
“It is our sincere hope that this very serious sanction will enable (him) to return to Stanford fully committed to maintaining the integrity and safety” of the community, the panel wrote.
The student’s suspension was to begin after he completed another suspension “currently in place,” according to the 2016 record.
You won’t be surprised that, even thought Stanford said the kid could come back, he didn’t. His name is mud at Stanford. (And believe me, even though proceedings were probably “anonymous” as to him, everyone at Stanford knows who he is.) There’s no future for him there. The question is whether there’s a future for him anywhere. I’m not excusing his stupidity in getting drunk and hooking up but, as with the Brock Turner case, she’s now positioning herself as a celebrated victim and he’s an evil pariah, despite their having engaged in identical conduct.
Unsatisfied with her Third-Wave Feminist vengeance on the man, Talley is now doing what Emma “Mattress Girl” Sulkowicz and Brock Turner’s accusers have done, which is to turn their hurt feelings into media-friendly performance art. These women are dangerous harpies. As I said earlier of Brock Turner’s accuser, I don’t care that they think they’ve been raped, which is definitely a psychic burden. They could have gone the empowered route of saying “I did something stupid, I learned from it, and I’m moving on.” Instead, they enveloped themselves in their Leftist victim mantle and set about destroying the man who was a partner in events they either willingly participated in (Sulkowicz) or willingly got drunk for. The real victims, therefore, are the men, who were as stupid and irresponsible as the women, but who get no fame, only blame.
Real rape is a criminal matter. Fake rape — and what we’re seeing here, insofar as the Chronicle report goes, is fake rape because there is zero evidence of real rape — is a cause that Third Wave feminist-run university administrations have taken up in their ongoing war against men.
For that reason, I have no sympathy for the bad press Stanford gets in the Chronicle article. In a sane world, parents reading it would say, “Hey, I can’t send my daughter to that hellhole that’s worse than a South African slum or Swedish suburb.” But the parents don’t think any such thing. They all know that these are lies and that their daughters are safe. It’s the parents of boys who are either in denial or who hope that it’s not their sons that get caught up in the net.
We need to take federal monies, all federal monies, out of higher education. That would solve a world of ills.