GoBills73 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Does anyone else find it strange that in the woman's statement, nothing is mentioned as to the alleged sharing of the pictures/video? If there is one thing that one (or more?) of the players did wrong it would be the sharing of the content on social media. I'm surprised this wasn't brought up in the statement.Maybe it didn't fit well with the attempt to tie this all to 'sexual assault'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Metzinger Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 5 hours ago, TheOne said: The term “survivor” used in this statement makes me absolutely sick... “survivor”.... like this was an act that threatened the woman’s life. In reality she was wholly or at least in part responsible for the organization of this group sex act. The only thing she’s a “survivor” of is the embarrassment associated with her own false filing of a “sexual assault” that is proving to be an angled myth. There aren't enough likes for this. Well done. TheOne likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Metzinger Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 2 hours ago, Pistol said: This has already been debunked, and yet I'm seeing people post it everyday in here. Also, she's being represented by "Attorney Katherine Wessling of the Crime Victim Advocacy Center" - not exactly a sign of power or deep pockets. Perhaps, or her legal W-L record could make her hiring a slam-dunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Majerus Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) The best advice columnist ever IMO is Carolyn Hax of the Washington Post. Her correspondents are primarily women. I'm paraphrasing her here, but a constant reply of hers is "decide who you are and then own it." "Veritas in facebit te rubor" Alfred E Neuman (The truth will make you blush)😃 Edited January 31, 2018 by Major Majerus Typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLUBALLS Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Watched The Red Pill documentary on Amazon last night. Would recommend it to everyone given the environment guys find themselves in these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmbilliken Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 28 minutes ago, Bobby Metzinger said: Perhaps, or her legal W-L record could make her hiring a slam-dunk. Perhaps Wessling is a friend of the hearing officer and Kraftky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 1 hour ago, GoBills73 said: Tony continues. Love it. Nevertheless, he persisted. brianstl likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoon-Balls Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/#article-comments “[My friend] knows I was with Kojo. She probably told all the brothers in the room, and they’re gonna hate me when they find out”—she didn’t explain why. “I can never come back here.” Her friend started teasing her, asking how it had gone. R.M. was a resident adviser in her dormitory—someone tasked with counseling other students—and at that moment, she wrote, “as my RA training kicked in, I realized I’d been sexually assaulted.” She wrote that while in retrospect she should have left if she didn’t want to continue the encounter, she hadn’t wanted to be a bad sport—“that UMass Student Culture dictates that when women become sexually involved with men they owe it to them to follow through.” She added, “I want to fully own my participation in what happened, but at the same time recognize that I felt violated and that I owe it to myself and others to hold him accountable for something I felt in my bones wasn’t right.” This right here is the root of the problem, and I believe it is the exact same mindset that our accuser and the women in the Title IX office have on this entire issue of sexual assault. A woman, who engaged in a fully consensual sexual interlude, has somehow come to believe that because she was ambivelent about it afterwords, that she was worried about the consequnces to herself or her reputation after the fact, that some one other than her has to be held accountable. She further states that her conviction that she was sexually assaulted arose from her training as a Resident Assistant... The starting point for this entire nationwide debate about sexual assault and Title IX should really be focused on: why are women being taught such an infantalizing view of sexuality by these Title IX folks? It is scary that the accuser believes, in her mind, that she has actually been assaulted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmbilliken Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 25 minutes ago, Spoon-Balls said: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/#article-comments “[My friend] knows I was with Kojo. She probably told all the brothers in the room, and they’re gonna hate me when they find out”—she didn’t explain why. “I can never come back here.” Her friend started teasing her, asking how it had gone. R.M. was a resident adviser in her dormitory—someone tasked with counseling other students—and at that moment, she wrote, “as my RA training kicked in, I realized I’d been sexually assaulted.” She wrote that while in retrospect she should have left if she didn’t want to continue the encounter, she hadn’t wanted to be a bad sport—“that UMass Student Culture dictates that when women become sexually involved with men they owe it to them to follow through.” She added, “I want to fully own my participation in what happened, but at the same time recognize that I felt violated and that I owe it to myself and others to hold him accountable for something I felt in my bones wasn’t right.” This right here is the root of the problem, and I believe it is the exact same mindset that our accuser and the women in the Title IX office have on this entire issue of sexual assault. A woman, who engaged in a fully consensual sexual interlude, has somehow come to believe that because she was ambivelent about it afterwords, that she was worried about the consequnces to herself or her reputation after the fact, that some one other than her has to be held accountable. She further states that her conviction that she was sexually assaulted arose from her training as a Resident Assistant... The starting point for this entire nationwide debate about sexual assault and Title IX should really be focused on: why are women being taught such an infantalizing view of sexuality by these Title IX folks? It is scary that the accuser believes, in her mind, that she has actually been assaulted. What a story. She was the total aggressor. She stuck her hand down his pants and then started giving him a blow job. He never took any of her clothes off. She was the one that was on him and started feeling bad about it when a girlfriend started teasing her. So at that point she realized she had been sexually assaulted. That is like claiming you were assaulted because someone repeated struck your fists with their face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 50 minutes ago, Spoon-Balls said: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/#article-comments “[My friend] knows I was with Kojo. She probably told all the brothers in the room, and they’re gonna hate me when they find out”—she didn’t explain why. “I can never come back here.” Her friend started teasing her, asking how it had gone. R.M. was a resident adviser in her dormitory—someone tasked with counseling other students—and at that moment, she wrote, “as my RA training kicked in, I realized I’d been sexually assaulted.” She wrote that while in retrospect she should have left if she didn’t want to continue the encounter, she hadn’t wanted to be a bad sport—“that UMass Student Culture dictates that when women become sexually involved with men they owe it to them to follow through.” She added, “I want to fully own my participation in what happened, but at the same time recognize that I felt violated and that I owe it to myself and others to hold him accountable for something I felt in my bones wasn’t right.” This right here is the root of the problem, and I believe it is the exact same mindset that our accuser and the women in the Title IX office have on this entire issue of sexual assault. A woman, who engaged in a fully consensual sexual interlude, has somehow come to believe that because she was ambivelent about it afterwords, that she was worried about the consequnces to herself or her reputation after the fact, that some one other than her has to be held accountable. She further states that her conviction that she was sexually assaulted arose from her training as a Resident Assistant... The starting point for this entire nationwide debate about sexual assault and Title IX should really be focused on: why are women being taught such an infantalizing view of sexuality by these Title IX folks? It is scary that the accuser believes, in her mind, that she has actually been assaulted. -this is messed up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLU_Lax Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Spoon-Balls said: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/#article-comments “[My friend] knows I was with Kojo. She probably told all the brothers in the room, and they’re gonna hate me when they find out”—she didn’t explain why. “I can never come back here.” Her friend started teasing her, asking how it had gone. R.M. was a resident adviser in her dormitory—someone tasked with counseling other students—and at that moment, she wrote, “as my RA training kicked in, I realized I’d been sexually assaulted.” She wrote that while in retrospect she should have left if she didn’t want to continue the encounter, she hadn’t wanted to be a bad sport—“that UMass Student Culture dictates that when women become sexually involved with men they owe it to them to follow through.” She added, “I want to fully own my participation in what happened, but at the same time recognize that I felt violated and that I owe it to myself and others to hold him accountable for something I felt in my bones wasn’t right.” This right here is the root of the problem, and I believe it is the exact same mindset that our accuser and the women in the Title IX office have on this entire issue of sexual assault. A woman, who engaged in a fully consensual sexual interlude, has somehow come to believe that because she was ambivelent about it afterwords, that she was worried about the consequnces to herself or her reputation after the fact, that some one other than her has to be held accountable. She further states that her conviction that she was sexually assaulted arose from her training as a Resident Assistant... The starting point for this entire nationwide debate about sexual assault and Title IX should really be focused on: why are women being taught such an infantalizing view of sexuality by these Title IX folks? It is scary that the accuser believes, in her mind, that she has actually been assaulted. It is also interesting (and parallel's this case) where even with the cards stacked against Kojo, they were unable to find him guilty of sexual assault. They then decided that since he requested to be her friend on Facebook (something which he vehemently denies) and he used her name in a letter asking for help against the charges, that he should be handed a long suspension which effectively acted as an expulsion. I guess at least we are not the only place where things have gone truly nuts. On another note, they reference third party reports of Title IX violations should always be requested (even if the "victim" refuses to cooperate). I wonder how many people will submit third party reports of the female accusers in this case after the investigation's reports are released. I cannot wait to see people turning in teachers for brushing their hand or instructors for making a joke that was overheard. It would be interesting to see if this just ballooned out of control. One way to potentially stop things would be to just overwhelm the Title IX office with complaints ranging from accusations that a teacher looked a student "up-and-down" or a joke was inappropriate or someone's presence in a bathroom made someone else uncomfortable or maybe someone was watching a rerun of the sitcom Friends in their dorm with the door open and it exposed others to an inappropriate joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curious Observer Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Just signed up for forum after reading many pages on this topic. Not an alumni, not really a fan, go to perhaps 3-5 games per year when friends with season tickets give them to me. so I am totally neutral on this subject. I was told of this board by a season ticket holder. I am amazed by the passion. I am interested in board's feelings on the following. Assume all actions known and unknown were totally and 100% consensual, including taking and posting videos, pictures etc. Further assume that someone, likely one of the females changed their mind and filed a formal complaint with the university. Further assume that no law was violated, and that there really is no actual proof of a Title IX violation. If all those things are true, does a private Catholic Jesuit university have the right to say something along the lines of "SLU does not approve of individuals participating in 4 on 3 group sex and posting it on social media. While we recognize the right of the individuals to behave as they choose within the boundaries of law , we will not allow students who demonstrated this behavior, which we believe to be morally wrong, to continue to represent our school ?" Obviously this would have to apply equally to male and female participants. Thanks so much for the very interesting content on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 1 minute ago, Curious Observer said: Just signed up for forum after reading many pages on this topic. Not an alumni, not really a fan, go to perhaps 3-5 games per year when friends with season tickets give them to me. so I am totally neutral on this subject. I was told of this board by a season ticket holder. I am amazed by the passion. I am interested in board's feelings on the following. Assume all actions known and unknown were totally and 100% consensual, including taking and posting videos, pictures etc. Further assume that someone, likely one of the females changed their mind and filed a formal complaint with the university. Further assume that no law was violated, and that there really is no actual proof of a Title IX violation. If all those things are true, does a private Catholic Jesuit university have the right to say something along the lines of "SLU does not approve of individuals participating in 4 on 3 group sex and posting it on social media. While we recognize the right of the individuals to behave as they choose within the boundaries of law , we will not allow students who demonstrated this behavior, which we believe to be morally wrong, to continue to represent our school ?" Obviously this would have to apply equally to male and female participants. Thanks so much for the very interesting content on this topic. there is the problem. it has not been equal by a longshot. right now it is all on the boys. pesty, krafty and in particular stormy have went full rogue on the players while our darling cheerleader is writing revenge notes via her attorney ahd the post dispatch, flaunting her advance knowledge and likely being the master planner of everything and only having remorse hours later and proceeding to file false assault accusations. it is a complete trainwreck. SLU_Lax, HenryB, billikenfan05 and 1 other like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills_06 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 5 minutes ago, Curious Observer said: Just signed up for forum after reading many pages on this topic. Not an alumni, not really a fan, go to perhaps 3-5 games per year when friends with season tickets give them to me. so I am totally neutral on this subject. I was told of this board by a season ticket holder. I am amazed by the passion. I am interested in board's feelings on the following. Assume all actions known and unknown were totally and 100% consensual, including taking and posting videos, pictures etc. Further assume that someone, likely one of the females changed their mind and filed a formal complaint with the university. Further assume that no law was violated, and that there really is no actual proof of a Title IX violation. If all those things are true, does a private Catholic Jesuit university have the right to say something along the lines of "SLU does not approve of individuals participating in 4 on 3 group sex and posting it on social media. While we recognize the right of the individuals to behave as they choose within the boundaries of law , we will not allow students who demonstrated this behavior, which we believe to be morally wrong, to continue to represent our school ?" Obviously this would have to apply equally to male and female participants. Thanks so much for the very interesting content on this topic. My biggest counter would be what does kicking them out do? If they are going to pull religious card isn't one of the biggest things Jesus was about was forgiveness? Have them do hours of community service in that case. Bobby Metzinger likes this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 1 minute ago, Bills_06 said: My biggest counter would be what does kicking them out do? If they are going to pull religious card isn't one of the biggest things Jesus was about was forgiveness? Have them do hours of community service in that case. Sort of "Devils" advocate: Where is the line drawn between the religious responsibility and the responsibility to a "safe" environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLU_Lax Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 14 minutes ago, Curious Observer said: Just signed up for forum after reading many pages on this topic. Not an alumni, not really a fan, go to perhaps 3-5 games per year when friends with season tickets give them to me. so I am totally neutral on this subject. I was told of this board by a season ticket holder. I am amazed by the passion. I am interested in board's feelings on the following. Assume all actions known and unknown were totally and 100% consensual, including taking and posting videos, pictures etc. Further assume that someone, likely one of the females changed their mind and filed a formal complaint with the university. Further assume that no law was violated, and that there really is no actual proof of a Title IX violation. If all those things are true, does a private Catholic Jesuit university have the right to say something along the lines of "SLU does not approve of individuals participating in 4 on 3 group sex and posting it on social media. While we recognize the right of the individuals to behave as they choose within the boundaries of law , we will not allow students who demonstrated this behavior, which we believe to be morally wrong, to continue to represent our school ?" Obviously this would have to apply equally to male and female participants. Thanks so much for the very interesting content on this topic. My biggest issue is that the school would be making up rules as they went. If the school (like BYU) was upfront and had a CLEAR standard and then enforced it, it would be no issue. In this case, group sex is not against the student handbook and retroactively outlawing it and punishing people is wrong. Then again, maybe the school should be telling all their male students that if you have consensual sexual activities with a woman and then she changes her mind later that you will be kicked out.....your roommate will be kicked out as well.....and any male within 50 yards of the incident is will be suspended for 18 months. The school does understand though that these punished parties may not feel like the did anything wrong....and that is how the school is confident they are sexual assaulters....sexual assaulters do not know they are sexual assaulters. So if you ever ask someone if they are a sexual assaulter and they say "no"....you can be confident of two things....#1 they are telling the truth and #2 they are in fact sexual assaulters. majerus mojo, slufanskip and GoBills73 like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majerus mojo Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻 SLUperman, GBL_Bills and Spoon-Balls like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littlebill Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 nm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLUperman Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 16 minutes ago, Curious Observer said: Just signed up for forum after reading many pages on this topic. Not an alumni, not really a fan, go to perhaps 3-5 games per year when friends with season tickets give them to me. so I am totally neutral on this subject. I was told of this board by a season ticket holder. I am amazed by the passion. I am interested in board's feelings on the following. Assume all actions known and unknown were totally and 100% consensual, including taking and posting videos, pictures etc. Further assume that someone, likely one of the females changed their mind and filed a formal complaint with the university. Further assume that no law was violated, and that there really is no actual proof of a Title IX violation. If all those things are true, does a private Catholic Jesuit university have the right to say something along the lines of "SLU does not approve of individuals participating in 4 on 3 group sex and posting it on social media. While we recognize the right of the individuals to behave as they choose within the boundaries of law , we will not allow students who demonstrated this behavior, which we believe to be morally wrong, to continue to represent our school ?" Obviously this would have to apply equally to male and female participants. Thanks so much for the very interesting content on this topic. If their grounds for the ruling were based in morality and school guidelines, then it would have to punish the girls as well in some manner for their participation in what was deemed an immoral act. The punishment would still be excessive imo, but it would be "equal." This is where the feminist movement loses me big time. A large portion of feminists are in it for the advocation for special female privilege, rather than female egalitarianism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills_06 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 4 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said: Sort of "Devils" advocate: Where is the line drawn between the religious responsibility and the responsibility to a "safe" environment. Guess I would say depends on who it impacts. If everything is consensual in a sexual activity, I don't feel that creates an unsafe environment. On the other hand of course you can't just allow a kid who commits a non consensual activity to stay on based on the forgiveness aspect of their religion because of the unsafe environment that would create. I don't know the rulebook of SLU but guessing that hopefully a lot of those items that create an unsafe environment are outlined for grounds for expulsion. Don't know if group sex is mentioned in there but if it is, then yea I understand them following it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGSLU Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 15 minutes ago, Curious Observer said: Just signed up for forum after reading many pages on this topic. Not an alumni, not really a fan, go to perhaps 3-5 games per year when friends with season tickets give them to me. so I am totally neutral on this subject. I was told of this board by a season ticket holder. I am amazed by the passion. I am interested in board's feelings on the following. Assume all actions known and unknown were totally and 100% consensual, including taking and posting videos, pictures etc. Further assume that someone, likely one of the females changed their mind and filed a formal complaint with the university. Further assume that no law was violated, and that there really is no actual proof of a Title IX violation. If all those things are true, does a private Catholic Jesuit university have the right to say something along the lines of "SLU does not approve of individuals participating in 4 on 3 group sex and posting it on social media. While we recognize the right of the individuals to behave as they choose within the boundaries of law , we will not allow students who demonstrated this behavior, which we believe to be morally wrong, to continue to represent our school ?" Obviously this would have to apply equally to male and female participants. Thanks so much for the very interesting content on this topic. Problem #1- how does one revoke consent for a previously occurring physical action? I realize we live in a world where "imaginative" things become reality based on popular vote, but in reality how this revocation should be considered invalid. As to whether a Jesuit university could impose higher standards of morality-- I would think they can but considering that the Jesuits are a traditionally a more liberal branch of the Roman Catholic Church, I'm not sure a Jesuit university would be one to invoke this. It could be that there is some type of moral turpitude language in students' scholarship agreements, particularly athletes. In this situation, you have a combination of men and women-- willing participants in a sexual act. I would think even the Jesuits would be disturbed with whether justice is served when penalties are handed out in a disparate manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiseAndGrind Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Shut up everyone. What does Goodwins tweet mean? LindellWest, billikens747, VeniceMenace and 3 others like this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Metzinger Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 10 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said: Sort of "Devils" advocate: Where is the line drawn between the religious responsibility and the responsibility to a "safe" environment. Then wouldn't luring men into an orgy be the antithesis of a safe environment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgstl Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 4 minutes ago, RiseAndGrind said: Shut up everyone. What does Goodwins tweet mean? means frick y'all, i'm playing here regardless. I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Kid's hands are on fire! Quadruple double on the way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts