Was Jackie’s date invented to get her out of the friend zone?

The Washington Post story U-Va. students challenge Rolling Stone account of alleged sexual assault offers “Jackie’s” friends’ explanation of how Jackie came to go out on her date with the man she told them had orchestrated her rape.  Given the way the WaPo story is written it is somewhat difficult to follow, and I have to wonder if this isn’t intentional.  I might be reading the WaPo story wrong, but here is what I gather from the article:

Jackie was friend-zoned by a fellow freshman the story calls “Randall”.  Sometime after Randall gave her the LJBF talk, Jackie started talking to her group of friends (“Randall” “Andy” and “Cindy”) about an attractive guy in her chemistry class who was interested in her (I’ll call him chem guy moving forward).  Jackie provided her friends with chem guy’s phone number, and they started exchanging texts with him.  Chem guy explained that Jackie was amazing, but that sadly she was interested in some lucky freshman and not chem guy.  The lucky freshman isn’t named but all indicators seem to point to Randall, who coincidentally was one of the friends receiving the texts.  Chem guy even texted pictures of his studly self to Jackie’s friends, which WaPo describes as pictures of “a man with a sculpted jaw line and ocean-blue eyes”.

One day Jackie announced to her friends that she was going on a date with chem guy.  This is the night Jackie’s friends say she told them she was raped, and chem guy is the man her friends say Jackie told them orchestrated it.

The pictures of chem guy Jackie’s friend provided to WaPo appear to be social media pictures of someone Jackie went to high school with:

The Post identified the person in the pictures and learned that his name does not match the one Jackie gave friends in 2012. In an interview, the man said he was Jackie’s high school classmate but “never really spoke to her.” 

“I have nothing to do with it,” he said. He said it appears that the circulated photos were pulled from social media Web sites.

Chem guy continued to communicate with Randall even after the rape:

After the alleged attack, the chemistry student who Jackie said had taken her on the date wrote an e-mail to Randall, passing along praise that Jackie apparently had for him.

This entry was posted in Rape Culture. Bookmark the permalink.

104 Responses to Was Jackie’s date invented to get her out of the friend zone?

  1. Zelcorpion says:

    The Washington Post cleverly tip-toed around the issue leaving their readers mostly confused and unaware, that the newspaper actually described a totally made up fake chem guy – likely with texts being sent by Jackie. Pre-selection and desire by a higher status woman for another man works perfectly on a woman, but unfortunately that kind of behavior leaves us men cold.

    Also Jackie did not understand male thinking. No high status good-looking fraternity Alpha (chem guy) is going to spend his time texting to the platonic friends of a girl he is only interested in – a girl he hadn’t slept with yet. He never met those students or talked to them in person and was supposed to be popular – why would he text them talking about intimate details of his life?

    The texts themselves sound like female trolls trying to impersonate men using words like “bro” – the whole story is really cartoonish.

  2. allamagoosa says:

    “Pre-selection and desire by a higher status woman for another man works perfectly on a woman, but unfortunately that kind of behavior leaves us men cold.”

    Which is perhaps why she moved on to the rape story, she noticed that the texts weren’t working and wracked her brain for anything she knew of that might make him pay attention to her. After all, nothing brings the hero in a movie running faster than a rape attempt.

  3. MV says:

    Randall, Andy and Cindy come out with real names:

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/questions-raised-rolling-stones-uva-rape-story/story?id=27537952

    So, let’s recap the story:

    1) Jackie falls in crush with Randall.
    2) Randall LJBFs Jackie
    3) Jackie doesn’t understand that “no means no”
    4) Jackie invents an imaginary boyfriend “chem guy” , complete with fake photos and phone number
    5) Jackie boasts with chem guy in front of Randall to make him jealous. She even gives “chem guy’s phone number” to Randall, Andy and Cindy and, impersonating chem guy, insinuates to Randall that she loves him.
    6) Randall remains unimpressed.
    7) Jackie goes to date with chem guy.
    8) Few hours later Jackie gives Randall a “damsel in distress” call.
    9) Randall arrives and she hysterically tells him that chem guy lured her into a gang rape of clinton-levinsky variety.
    10) Instead of falling in love with her, Randall calls reinforcements: Andy and Cindy.
    11) They try to console her and convince her to go to police, but she refuses.
    12) After that night chem guy still sends texts to Randall singing praise to Jackie.
    13) Randall still doesn’t want to fall in love with Jackie.
    14) Jackie is heartbroken and gets depressed.
    15) Jackie finds out campus anti-rape activists and activities. Here she get attention, she didn’t get from Randall.
    16) In next two years Jackie gets obsessed with anti-rape activism. Her story of that night gets newer and newer juicy details.
    17) Two years later, Rolling Stone femipropagandist Sabrina Rubin Ederly is combing campuses nationwide to find THE perfect person for “campus rape culture awareness poster girl”.
    18) Jackie and Sabrina meet.
    19) Sabrina interviews Jackie, is too impressed to check the facts and runs the story to the printing presses.
    20) Zombie apocalypse breaks out.

    Have I forgotten something?

  4. Jeremy says:

    And women still don’t understand MGTOW? Queens of cognitive dissonance, the lot of them.

  5. ianironwood says:

    Looks pretty straightforward to me. I wonder if that cellphone can be tracked . . . ?

  6. pdwalker says:

    It most certainly can, but I think there is no need now, MV seems to have picked the truth out of that pack of lies.

  7. And women still don’t understand MGTOW? Queens of cognitive dissonance, the lot of them.

    Oh I think they understand it. The majority of them just haven’t heard of it (yet.)

  8. greyghost says:

    I have never heard of a woman using a rape to get a targeted male to white knight for her. Not the way this went down. I hope the cops didn’t make an arrest on this one.

  9. Warlock says:

    Thanx MV for summarizing the correct story for me.

  10. Glenfilthie says:

    Boys, the answer is obvious.

    Approach women the same way your parents and grandparents in the 40’s and 50’s did. Courtship is lengthy and thorough, you want to meet the parents and her friends. If they are chitty people she probably is too. Chaperones are an excellent idea during this period to prevent embarrassing accusations of impropriety (or false ones of rape). Before you get in the sack, you need to know exactly who you’re dealing with and what her baggage is. If you want a quick pump-n-dump you hire a prostitute and be done with it.

    It’s sad actually. The Rolling Stone will sell copy to millions after acting like complete chit birds, and this woman traded 15 minutes of fame for an eternity of shame. The accused will get a pass, of course…but they never should have been dragged through the mud in the first place. Everyone except the scum at the Rolling Stone and their readership loses.

  11. Maunalani says:

    Let’s go back to the old-fashioned way of asking the father permission to take the daughter out.

  12. I’m beginning to think that college is not for men any more. Learn to make fire and head for the woods. Go West young man.

  13. BC says:

    Jackie provided her friends with chem guy’s phone number, and they started exchanging texts with him.

    Hmmm…

    Jackie provided her friends with a phone number she said was chem guy’s but was actually hers (or a willing accomplice’s), and they started exchanging texts with her.

    Ah, much better.

  14. Eidolon says:

    @MV

    You missed one detail; “Jackie” requested they not run the article after talking with the alleged journalist. My guess is that after she told the juicy story to an extremely sympathetic ear (almost certainly inventing new salacious details at Erbely’s prompting), somewhere along the line the specter of actual corroborative investigation started to be raised and she panicked, knowing that none of the details would hold up. She told Erbely that it would be too painful for her to talk to the other people involved or some other BS. She then asked that the story be pulled, but Erbely felt it was far too useful so she ran with it anyway.

  15. Highwasp says:

    Hey look at this – Gandarusa is in the news:

    Indonesia to produce and distribute male fertility control pill

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/allnews/male-fertility-control-fertility-control-male-pill/

    The article is over at AVFM – If you decide to comment there be nice and polite and don’t get sarcastic or you’ll offend the overly sensitive moderators who’ll kick you out real quick.

  16. Nice work, Dalrock.🙂

  17. Boxer says:

    MV: Kudos from me also, for a concise and logical timeline.

    This shit just keeps getting better and better. Good gawd almighty.

  18. boxty says:

    Can’t you get a free phone # from Google Voice to receive calls or send text messages? Maybe that’s how Jackie sent texts from “Chem guy” to her friends?

  19. earl says:

    ‘And women still don’t understand MGTOW? Queens of cognitive dissonance, the lot of them.’

    A pretty simple explaination that points this out.

    ‘The reason women understand Chivalry but not MGTOW is because of Female Solipsism. If something doesn’t directly benefit women then it simply does not exist or they can’t understand it.’

    http://rexpatriarch.blogspot.com/2014/12/funny-how-women-understand-chivalry.html

  20. earl says:

    How odd…in 2014 a guy gets friendzone he laments a little then moves on.

    A gal gets friendzoned she makes up another boyfriend, makes up a rape accusation, goes to magazine.

    Gals must REALLY hate rejection.

  21. Opus says:

    Looking at this from a distance this Rape Campus thing seems to be an entirely American phenomenon. I say that, as where I am, the equivalent is the Salem-like hysteria known as Savilisation, in which as with The French Revolution former Aristocrats (of the music industry) are led out on an almost daily basis to meet Madame Guillotine.

    As everyone knows women never lie about Rape, Juries never convict wrongly and all Judges act without bias. ROFL

  22. moses says:

    The different reactions to news stories about “men are stupider” or “women are stupider” shows the truth.

    In my experience when ppl who get upset about a statement made about them it means the statement is true. When ppl ignore or laugh about a statement made about them it means it isn’t true.

    Need I say more?

  23. MV says:

    @BC

    Yes, that’s what I meant. However, English is not my first language and my knowledge of english grammar is simply not sufficient to clearly describe such a multi-level charlie foxtrot. Feel free to improve the explanation. And fix those damn pesky little “a”, “an” and “the” words while you’re at it, if necessary. I still often stick them into wrong places.

  24. Snowy says:

    The wrath of a woman scorned.

  25. Opus says:

    @Earl

    You are right: females really hate rejection; they are not used to it. From their earliest life they are told that they are special; the attention they receive through adolescence reinforces that view of themselves and their fickleness and the ease with which they can find a new man mean that rejection is not something they tend to experience; when they do they cannot cope with it.

    Having been rejected they then deduce that the way to win back the man is to make him jealous, or by appealing to his white-knight qualities; these two phases may be fused, and so they go with or pretend to go with another man. Should she allege that the new man has raped or abused her she will be able to demonstrate both her desirability (which she thinks he should feel) and also trigger his instinct of jealousy which will then bring out his more tender compassion for the female of the species, specifically in this case her.

    The Police as well as boyfriends can easily have the wool pulled over their eyes. I say this from experience. Women have little if any concern for the unfortunate victim of their lurid or homicidal machinations.

  26. MV says:

    @Eidolon

    Yes, yes, Sabrina is the real villain here.

    As I said in one previous post, Jackie is highly unstable and faced with such an overdose of negative public attention she can easily commit suicide. Or gets “suicided” by her superior feminists (like Erwin Rommel). In such an unfortunate case we will all be labeled “cyber murderers” and Jackie’s corpse will be re-used as a poster martyr for “raising awareness of cyberbullying of women”. (Such things DO happen: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/141204/slovenia-soul-searching-after-sex-shamed-headmasters-suicide )

    Sabrina, however, was supposed to be a serious adult journalist and should know better than to ideologically abuse (or shall I say: “press-rape”) Jackie while slut-shaming her friend Cindy in the process. She is a much better target for torches and pitchforks.

  27. MV says:

    @Snowy

    That.

    Or:

    “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive.”

  28. earl says:

    Reaction to rejection…yet another gender inequality.

    Does a guy even notice much when he is rejected anymore? It’s probably more surprise if he isn’t rejected.

  29. BC says:

    @MV: I had not yet read the comments when I posted mine, but it looks like we thought the same, and your timeline is more detailed. Kudos.

  30. Novaseeker says:

    Looks pretty straightforward to me. I wonder if that cellphone can be tracked . . . ?

    Sure, but likely only using a subpoena at this point. I’m guessing it was probably a throw-away 7-11 phone. At least that’s how I’d do it if I were faking it like that.

  31. Novaseeker says:

    The accused will get a pass, of course…but they never should have been dragged through the mud in the first place..

    Eh … there is no accused. No-one has been able to find “chem guy”. That’s the point. Likely he never existed. The pics on the phone are of her HS ex-BF who is away several states away and likely pulled by her from his social media sites (FB, I’m guessing). The whole thing is quite the hoax. There is no accused. It seems clear enough she was using pics of her HS ex-BF to try to goad Randall into a relationship with her based on a misunderstanding of how men’s attraction works (pre-selection is irrelevant). There is no accused, and almost certainly no rape happened here.

  32. earl says:

    ‘Sure, but likely only using a subpoena at this point. I’m guessing it was probably a throw-away 7-11 phone. At least that’s how I’d do it if I were faking it like that.’

    Given the fact it’s a young woman with some mental issues…I highly doubt she has the criminal mastermind to even think in terms like that. Unless she was coached by some other deviant.

  33. Novaseeker says:

    A gal gets friendzoned she makes up another boyfriend, makes up a rape accusation, goes to magazine.

    Gals must REALLY hate rejection.

    She didn’t go to the magazine contemporaneously, or at all, really. The incidents happened in 2012. The interview with the writer happened last summer or in the early fall. She wasn’t using the magazine to get the guy — that’s something that the magazine writer was looking for (she clearly wanted to do an expose on campus rape culture and was looking for some “good facts” to base a story around). In fact, “Jackie” didn’t want the story to run — RollingStone has admitted that, albeit belatedly.

    So, really, what she was doing was trumping up a FRA against a guy who doesn’t exist in order to coaxe a guy into a relationship with her via preselection. When that didn’t work, she did go nuts for a while according to witnesses (women really do hate being rejected, especially pretty women and the indications from the stories is that she is good looking), which then led to her getting involved with the campus anti-rape activists and so on, all of which encouraged her to feed off of the baseline lie, embellish it and so on, because she was now creating a new social group and identity based around rape — a rape which didn’t happen by a rapist who actually didn’t exist. Yet, it became a part of her identity because that became her new social group.

    Likely, this person had some mental issues before any of this started (most girls won’t go to such lengths to get a boy). It would appear that they have likely worsened over the past couple of years as she went further down the rabbit hole of her self-created fabrication of reality.

  34. Novaseeker says:

    Given the fact it’s a young woman with some mental issues…I highly doubt she has the criminal mastermind to even think in terms like that. Unless she was coached by some other deviant.

    Yeah, maybe. It could have been an accomplice who was close enough to her to allow her to do this yet seemingly invisible to everyone who has investigated the story. Seems odd to me. Perhaps she just “borrowed” a friend’s or acquaintance’s phone, sent the texts from it, and then deleted them. All kinds of possibilities, but most of them involve quite a significant degree of planning and deviousness, really.

  35. MV says:

    Welly, welly, welly, what do we have here:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2865855/Rolling-Stone-rape-article-author-previously-fell-hoax-story-sexually-abused-altar-boy-named-Billy-report-claims.html

    Apparently our Sabina is quite an experienced media-pimpette (pimpess, pimp-person, madame… not sure which title is politically correct these days.). She pimps not only college girls but also altar boys.

    As this mess unravels further, it might be a good business idea to fly to Romeand put up a popcorn stand in front of Vatican. “Popschaden Cornfreude” trade mark sounds quite delicious…

  36. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    Eh … there is no accused. No-one has been able to find “chem guy”. That’s the point. Likely he never existed. The pics on the phone are of her HS ex-BF who is away several states away and likely pulled by her from his social media sites (FB, I’m guessing).

    The WaPo says he told them he never really talked to her. Are you seeing another story?

  37. new anon says:

    There is no evidence this was her ex anything, much less boyfriend.

    The more likely scenario is that isn’t involved at all. As a practical matter, she chose some random picture off the internet and told people it was a picture of her boyfriend. Random in this case, just happened to be some guy who attended the same high school she did.

  38. Eidolon says:

    @new anon

    My guess would be that she had a crush on the guy whose picture she used in high school but he never really talked to her. Since she was constructing a fantasy world to try to influence her college crush, she created a world where her high school crush was super into her but couldn’t have her, i.e. where she had the power of rejection over him instead of the other way around. More gratifying to her ego that way.

  39. Looking Glass says:

    @Novaseeker:

    From our point of view, picking through the media lens, I’d take a stab her latent Bi-Polar disorder started kicking in. She would be 18-19 at that point. Mental disorders kick into high gear as the body shifts to full glucose metabolism in the brain. (Which is part of the reason high carb diets, over maintenance, lend themselves to Mental Disorders) Would explain the obsessiveness with one guy.

    As for the Texting stuff: Google Voice. I’ve used it for years to do that. You could even get a local number in the college’s town/whatever place she claimed he was from. No charge to pull off something like that.

  40. new anon says:

    Having been on the wrong end of a female stalker in high school, I find the scenario MV laid out to be plausible.

    – Strange calls to my home (this was pre caller-id).
    – Calls to restaurants placing large pick-up orders and leaving my name and phone number as the call back.
    – Calls to the school saying there was an emergency and I needed to be pulled out of class.
    – My car was broken into and items stolen (this was in the day when a coat hanger could be used to open a car door).
    – Rumors spread that I had gotten her alone and groped her.
    – Throwing herself at every friend I had (which was comical, because she was 3 years younger than me; a senior isn’t going to date a 9th grader).

    Eventually, the school (both the students and faculty) figured out she was a nut and stopped taking her seriously. But, the school officials never did anything to discipline her either. “She’s just a troubled young girl; you should learn to be more understanding” was literally the response I got from school officials.

  41. @oswald__c says:

    The party line — for leftwing feminists and right-wing white knights — is that “something” happened to trigger Jackie’s behaviour. This “something” is supposed to be a second, unreported sexual assault. Of course there is NO way for this to work, as the timeline shows she made up her “fake boyfriend” hoax before the night of the fake party. So, you’d have to add another supposed rape in between steps 4 & 5 in in MV’s timeline above…

    As Ace puts it (on Twitter): “so is it possible the universe conspired against her and had this horror befall her just days after she’d ruined her credibility ? in that case, we’re just going to have to say, “If the universe is conspiring this hard, we’re gonna have to let the universe win.”

    MV: here is more for your timeline:

    18) Jacke sits silent (or enables?) as UVA shuts down ALL fraternities… http://t.co/rPKerlfGr4

    19) Jackie sits silent as UVA official feminists coordinate with White House, Congress on national legislation based on her “gang rape”

    Is Jackie only a drama queen… did she make up whole thing SOLELY to get attention of a guy? Maybe at the start.. but she also had a political agenda.

    I would like to see what connections exist between Jackie, Rolling Stone, the Obama Administration, and Democratic lawmakers. Was there orchestration? The Elites are pushing the “it was simply a fuck up” way too hard…

    @oswald__c

  42. earl says:

    In 2014…Mental insanity for women is when things don’t go their way.

    Mental insanity for men is being masculine.

  43. Novaseeker says:

    The WaPo says he told them he never really talked to her. Are you seeing another story?

    I thought there was another story where it said that she was an ex-BF from HS, but I could be misremembering.

  44. Bluepillprofessor says:

    Wait, women lie about…sex.

    Your kidding!

    But I was told that women and children NEVER lie, ESPECIALLY about sex. Why what could be the possible incentive for these women to come forward years later (says the host on the Five as the tearful fake speaks to them on national TV). Hmm, what COULD be the incentive?

  45. Boxer says:

    I thought there was another story where it said that she was an ex-BF from HS, but I could be misremembering.

    Oddly, I had the same confusion. There are usually two or three of these “all men are rapists” stories floating about in the popular consciousness, so it might be the other one.

    Best, Boxer

  46. Anchorman says:

    I thought there was another story where it said that she was an ex-BF from HS, but I could be misremembering.

    Completely understandable, considering the narrative keeps changing.

  47. Tam the Bam says:

    “I thought there was another story where it said that she was an ex-BF from HS, but I could be misremembering.”
    I’m speculating [n.b.] that it’s a now-fossilized (thanks, interwebs) intermediate holding position from “Jackie” or the magazine.
    These people never cry uncle when contradicted with facts, each layer of the onion of lies has to be stripped off separately and while you’re doing that, they’re frantically fabricating new unverifiable tales to bolster their defenses. It’s like winkling the enemy out of tunnels with flamethrowers, one bunker at a time.

  48. earl says:

    Yes…usually a good way to see if what you are dealing with is a lie is to keep asking questions.

    A truthful event the answers will stay the same.
    Lies…the answers keep changing.

  49. Bob Wallace says:

    Jackie may have Munchhausen’s, which is an insatiable need for attention by pretending to be sick.

  50. Can absolutely confirm that sexual rejection is deadly poison to the feminine psyche. Mrs. TSJ becomes nearly terrified and rather angry the very few times I gently turn her down. She immediately asks (usually not 100% seriously) if I’m cheating. The handful of other girlfriends I’ve had are the same, especially when it came time to end the relationship.

    I can’t imagine going to college in today’s environment. Heterosexual men are essentially being forced to do sexually whatever any woman wants.

    I can remember blowing off one or two women (I just had zero attraction, that was all) and it’s troubling to think they can now run right to a Women’s Resource Center (TM) and essentially end my life academically and economically.

    What’s next?

  51. S. Chan says:

    MV, December 11 at 7:54 pm, raises an important point. After the alleged sexual assault, Jackie called Randall. Moreover, the other two only came when Randall called them, and Jackie did not want another girl coming. This is strong additional evidence that the answer to the title question is YES.

    There was also some element of a rape fantasy. Consider this excerpt from a Washington Post story:

    Jackie couldn’t figure out why “Drew” was paying attention to her when the other female lifeguards were “model-gorgeous blondes,” said Erdely…. “‘He was paying so much attention to me, showing so much interest in everything I had to say,’” Erdely said, paraphrasing Jackie.

  52. TSJ,

    I can remember blowing off one or two women (I just had zero attraction, that was all) and it’s troubling to think they can now run right to a Women’s Resource Center (TM) and essentially end my life academically and economically.

    No they can’t. The worst it is, is what happened at UVa and Duke. The guys at the UVa fraternity are going to be RICH when all is said in done. They are going to lawyer up and sue the beliving h-ll out of UVa and Rolling Stone. And the university that Thomas Jefferson founded has a multi-billion dollar endowment. That is what happened at Duke as well, those lacrosse players got millions of dollars from the Duke endowment fund as a result of what Duke did. (Money >>>>>>> an apology which they were never going to get anyway.)

    I think you are being a little over-dramatic there.

  53. S. Chan says:

    @ Dalrock, Novaseeker, Boxer

    Jackie invented two versions of the guy. First, there was the chem guy, whom her friends texted and saw photos of—the photos were actually of a guy that she went to high school with. Second, there was “Drew”; his (real) name is different than that of the chem guy, and he was a life guard at the university pool, etc.

    The first invented guy was the one that she told her friends about, when the story was that five men forced her to give them oral sex. The second invented guy was the one that she told Rolling Stone about, when the story was that seven men raped her while she was on broken glass.

  54. MV says:

    @S.Chan

    It appears that handsome lifeguard “Drew” is Jackie’s later addition to the story. Like

    (a) the exact name of fraternity in question
    (b) two extra rapists
    (c) three hours of group wallowing in broken glass
    (d) allegation that Cindy discouraged her to report the rape, to save her college slut reputation.
    (e) allegation that Randall declined interview with Ederly out of loyalty to his frat

    The last one can be explained. Jackie simply gave Ederly fake phone number of Randall. Ederly sent the text. Jackie (owning the throw-away phone) replied in Randall’s name and rejected interview out of fraternal loyalty.

    That, or Ederly never contacted Randall and simply made that part up, because it looked good on paper and beneficial to her agenda.

    Now, if those two fabulists just bothered to add “erotic fantasy novel” subtitle to the story everything would be A-OK. They could even get rich like the authoress of “50 shades of Grey”. But noooo! They had an anti-rape-culture crusade to fight…

  55. MV says:

    @S.Chan 2

    Yes “chem guy” was replaced with “lifeguard Drew” and 5 member forced-oral-sex was replaced with 7 member something-out-of-snuff-porn.

  56. MV,

    Now, if those two fabulists just bothered to add “erotic fantasy novel” subtitle to the story everything would be A-OK. They could even get rich like the authoress of “50 shades of Grey”. But noooo! They had an anti-rape-culture crusade to fight…

    What do feminists really want here with this “rape culture?” I mean what is the goal to be achieved with false accusations that (when the facts come out) make every rape accuser look like Tawana Brawley? Well I think the comment from George Purcell over at Megan’s blog said it best…

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-11/lessons-from-the-rolling-stone-debacle

    A couple of points. First, this was not just a case of the reporter taking advantage of a damaged person. Said “damaged person” had already spread the story far and wide enough that she heard it in the first place. That gossip transmission alone must have caused a tremendous amount of damage to the members of the fraternity, damage they may not have known about (or even become aware of).

    Second, yes there is an issue of falling in love with a narrative–but this is much more than that. Because on this issue–and on this issue alone–it has become socially acceptable not only NOT to examine claims with a critical eye but to assert that the mere examination of claims in that way is, not to put too fine a point on it, evil.

    She says she was raped. If you check up on the story that makes you EVIL!

    That is really it. This whole “rape culture” thing is about POWER. Feminists want to give women life controlling POWER over men by setting the narrative such that no one is permitted even to investigate the authenticity of the claim. If they get that then “rape” is (to her) whatever a woman wants it to be. This makes perfect sense if you believe (as I do) that women have no moral agency.

  57. MV says:

    This is just fantastic. The harder feminists try to rebuild their mound, the faster it collapses, while they catfight among each other over their own conflicting stories and narratives. This is Tower of Babel redux, folks.

  58. “I think you are being a little over-dramatic there”

    Give us a break. Brian Banks’s dreams of playing football were destroyed by a false rape accusation. What’s he supposed to do, sue to get his youth back?

    Do you really think courts only side with the person who has been legitimately wronged, who has reason and justice on their side?

  59. Give us a break. Brian Banks’s dreams of playing football were destroyed by a false rape accusation. What’s he supposed to do, sue to get his youth back?

    No. He was supposed to NOT plead “no contest” and fight the rape charge to the very end. And when he was exonerated he was supposed to sue Wannita Gibson for everything she had (and maybe even the government that incarcerated him wrongfully.) He’s got a winner here.

    He can’t get his youth back. He gets money instead. Money is power.

  60. feeriker says:

    ‘The reason women understand Chivalry but not MGTOW is because of Female Solipsism. If something doesn’t directly benefit women then it simply does not exist, they refuse to recognize it, or they can’t understand it.’

    Fixed.

  61. MV says:

    Meet Emily Renda, the nice concerned citizen (and also WhiteHouseTaskForce employee in her spare time) who introduced Jackie to Ederly.

    http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=3334

    The dots are connecting…

  62. Do you really think courts only side with the person who has been legitimately wronged, who has reason and justice on their side?

    No. But nothing will happen if those young men at UVa don’t do anything. They have to do this themselves. If those young men at UVa do exactly as the Duke frat boys did and sue the crap out of UVa and Rolling Stone they are going to win. They have a winner here. It will never go to court (UVa will settle with their attorneys long before jury selection) but they will get big bucks, seven figures (each.) None of them will have criminal records and (its entirely possible) they will be able to finish up their degrees free of charge at UVa. No they can’t get those two years of hell back BUT they will be made “whole” financially.

    That is how this works, right or wrong.

    The fraternity organizations themselves can sue UVa and Rolling Stone and get their charters re-instated at UVa. Yes they can do that. Again, it will never go to court, but they too have a winner.

    It is ONLY when feminists and those who support the feminist imperative (not to mention political action groups on the wrong side of the law) have to spend money do they start to maybe regret their foolhearty positions. As far as I know, Al Sharpton is still paying Steve Pagones if he hasn’t settled up in full already.

  63. MarcusD says:

    Afghan woman shocks onlookers by baring her legs
    http://nypost.com/2014/12/11/afghan-woman-shocks-onlookers-by-baring-her-legs/

    Does Truth Matter to the Feminist Left? (note the inclusion of “Left”)
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394464/does-truth-matter-feminist-left-charles-c-w-cooke

    ==


    Men today may feel less pressure to find jobs because they are less likely than previous generations to be providing for others. Only 28 percent of men without jobs — compared with 58 percent of women — said a child under 18 lived with them.

    A study published in October by scholars at the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for Family Studies estimated that 37 percent of the decline in male employment since 1979 could be explained by this retreat from marriage and fatherhood.

    The Vanishing Male Worker: How America Fell Behind
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/upshot/unemployment-the-vanishing-male-worker-how-america-fell-behind.html?abt=0002&abg=0&_r=0

  64. feeriker says:

    Eventually, the school (both the students and faculty) figured out she was a nut and stopped taking her seriously. But, the school officials never did anything to discipline her either. “She’s just a troubled young girl; you should learn to be more understanding” was literally the response I got from school officials.

    A nice big juicy lawsuit against the school district would’ve changed their tune on that.

  65. S. Chan says:

    MV

    The feminist mound will not collapse. Feminists, on their own, could be beaten. The problem is manginas: as long as they support feminists, feminists will continue to be broadly successful.

    Manginas tend to be men whose desperation for sex has turned them into lickspittles. Find a way to address that, and the problem will get solved.

  66. feeriker,

    A nice big juicy lawsuit against the school district would’ve changed their tune on that.

    You are right. new anon should have sued. He didn’t have many damages (a few thousand bucks maybe for the damage to the car and his reputation) but something. A small claim against the district, not a “big juicy one” was warranted AND they would have handled the young lady a little differently. Probably didn’t even need a lawyer for it.

  67. Bee says:

    Women were safer under the Patriarchy.

    Less rape, no regret sex.

    Less domestic violence. Promiscuity + short term shacking up = jealousy = violence. Theodore Dalrymple explains this in his book, Life at the Bottom.

    Less abuse of children – most child abuse is kids in home without dad.

  68. Women were safer under the Patriarchy.

    Less rape, no regret sex.

    Less domestic violence. Promiscuity + short term shacking up = jealousy = violence. Theodore Dalrymple explains this in his book, Life at the Bottom.

    Less abuse of children – most child abuse is kids in home without dad.

    Yes to all of this.

  69. Opus says:

    I had a girlfriend (of six weeks duration) and I ditched her – no explanation from me. I just wanted to end it and I had other female interests. Period.

    I then received a fairly long letter from her wherein:

    1. I was informed that I had from the moment I met her been in love with her and she refuses to believe otherwise.

    2. She fails at any point in the letter to even consider the possibility that her behaviour might have had any part in my decision. It was all the fault of the abstract ‘situation and circumstances’.

    3. She then rebuilt the mound telling me how (in the ten days since our conversation) she is once again a strong empowered woman ™ and proposes having sex with an army officer she has yet to meet but will do so when she goes to a party on the weekend.

    I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

    I did not reply but three months later she phoned to see whether I had the number of a guy who she wanted to have sex with. I didn’t.

  70. Jeremy says:

    @innocentbystanderboston

    …it’s troubling to think they can now run right to a Women’s Resource Center (TM) and essentially end my life academically and economically.

    No they can’t. The worst it is, is what happened at UVa and Duke. The guys at the UVa fraternity are going to be RICH when all is said in done. They are going to lawyer up and sue the beliving h-ll out of UVa and Rolling Stone….

    There is significant apex fallacy in that comment. That works for people who can afford good representation. For the rest of us, yeah, our lives can easily end up ruined just by rejecting a woman and her false accusations to the closest SJW. You falsely presume that the legal system, on a long enough timeline, will grant justice to everyone. That’s simply not true. Justice is now extremely expensive, hence the significant amounts of civil unrest these days.

  71. Jeremy,

    There is significant apex fallacy in that comment. That works for people who can afford good representation. For the rest of us, yeah, our lives can easily end up ruined just by rejecting a woman and her false accusations to the closest SJW. You falsely presume that the legal system, on a long enough timeline, will grant justice to everyone. That’s simply not true. Justice is now extremely expensive, hence the significant amounts of civil unrest these days.

    Perhaps. But the ultimate fallacy in your comment is that you assume the boys do NOT have a winner. If they don’t have a penny to their name BUT they have a winner (and they do) any personal injury attorney will take this case without charging a dime in advance because they are going to get their whole 33%. This is a civil suit and a winner. What’s more, its a quick winner. I can not over emphisize that. If it was maybe a winner then yes, I would say you might have a point. But this one is pretty obvious, pretty cut and dried.

  72. new anon says:

    @feeriker, @IBB,

    This was the 1970s. I was a senior in high school. My goal was to enjoy my senior year and then get on with my life, not screw up my senior year pursuing some lawsuit that may (or may not have) netted any money, but sure as heck would have cost my family significant money up front in lawyer fees.

    And that assumes I could have PROVEN anything in court.

    Besides, how do you think running into court and say “this 14 year old girl is harassing me, make her stop” would have gone over (especially considering I was a 6-4 230 lb senior)? Judges were just as much white-knights back then as they are now.

  73. @feeriker, @IBB,

    This was the 1970s. I was a senior in high school. My goal was to enjoy my senior year and then get on with my life, not screw up my senior year pursuing some lawsuit that may (or may not have) netted any money, but sure as heck would have cost my family significant money up front in lawyer fees.

    And that assumes I could have PROVEN anything in court.

    Besides, how do you think running into court and say “this 14 year old girl is harassing me, make her stop” would have gone over (especially considering I was a 6-4 230 lb senior)? Judges were just as much white-knights back then as they are now.

    You had a small claim. She damaged your car. She damaged your reputation. You could have everyone at the school that knew about this incident testify in court and you would not have needed a lawyer. All you needed was $17 (or there-abouts) to file the small claim. I have sued twice without lawyers (small claims) and won in both circumstances.

    You did right not to do it. Given your situation it wasn’t worth it. You were truly the “bigger” man. And that’s good. But you could have and it wouldn’t have cost you hardly anything.

  74. Bluepillprofessor says:

    IBB you are way , way overestimating the value of this case for libel. Did anybody go to jail for 10 years? Nope. Who exactly was damaged? The fake dude? The Fraternity? How do you put a price on a Fraternities reputation? Who was kicked out of school? Who is going to get rich from this case?

    Who is suing who? What are the damages?

  75. Jeremy says:

    @innocentbystanderboston

    Perhaps. But the ultimate fallacy in your comment is that you assume the boys do NOT have a winner.

    Wrong. I did not assume failure, but you presumed success. You presume that all boys will win in a civil trial, that’s false.

  76. bpp,

    The Fraternity? How do you put a price on a Fraternities reputation? Who was kicked out of school? Who is going to get rich from this case?

    Who is suing who? What are the damages?

    I’m not a lawyer and I’ll bet I could get each one of these guys $5 million bucks (a lifetime’s worth of earnings) without even going to trial. And why? Consider:

    The fraternity was damaged in that it was completely shut down (and is still shut down) and the boys were either booted from their home or from school or both. They can’t just “transfer” to another university like UVa. From a merit, honor, and respect standpoint, that is the second best state univeristy in the country (second only to U-C-Berkley.) You think they can just attend Richmond or VCU and call it a day? If the boys choose to stay (if they are even allowed to) on campus they are pariahs now. Real damage is done to their reputation. Those young men are the victims. And yes, they will get rich. And yes, it will be very easy for society to figure out exactly who they are without UVa making a public statement. It will be made public (somehow.) It did not take people long to figure out who Jackie was OR the girl who went after Jameis Winston (and their identities were never officially given by anyone.) With social media, everyone can figure out everything about everyone. Unless you completely opt out of society, there is no where for you to hide.

    The young men sue UVa and Rolling Stone. Forget about the past two years for these guys, think about their future! The damages are in the millions as they could argue (their whole lives) this could come back to haunt them, could harm their carreers, WILL harm their social standing. They could argue that because of what RS and UVa did now they may never have a shot at a normal relationship with women. And they would be right, they might not have a shot. What is the dollar figure of damage on that? We don’t know what society is to make of them. There are millions of feminist imperative people (many in position of authority) who will still look at them and regard them as guilty of rape (and will do all that they can to jeapordize their futures) even though these young men didn’t do a thing. What is the dollar figure for damages there?

    This is huge. They were victimized. They have a winner and its massive. This is why we have civil lawsuits, to make those who were victimized by someone else in a postion of POWER truly whole. Its not the end of the world for these young men (the way TSJ stated) because they CAN sue. And they will. Their damages all stem from who has all the POWER. Their gripe is only minutely with lunatic-Jackie as she had very little real power to damage their lives. If no one had believed her story (and no one should have) then nothing would have happened to the fraternity. Their real damage was done by two entities in POWER: UVa listening to her and taking unilateral action against the fraternities AND by Rolling Stone for telling the whole world that these boys were rapists. That will cost them (dearly.) This is why Florida State Univerisity has taken NO REAL ACTION against Jameis Winston regarding his alleged “rape.” The DA investigating believes the girl who pressed charges is full of shit. The DA will not go after him. There has been no arrest. FSU dare not take ANY ACTION given that she went to the police and they don’t believe her. Winston would have a huge lawsuit against Florida State if they acted within their power unilaterally, and they know it.

    This is the big time guys. This “rape culture” is costing entities in position of power a lot of money because it is very easy to identify who the real victims are. I’ll bet Duke took a $100 million dollar hit to its endowment. And the more and more these BPD girls cry wolf to a government that they assume was designed ONLY their empowerment (because that is what the feminist imperative has taught them), the less and less those in authority who have much to lose will take unilateral action because that would make them liable. And remember, a jury (maybe not always in a criminal case, but in a civil case specifically) by its very nature is “red pill.” In the manner of determining civil damages, the feminist imperative shit hits the fan and truth and reality become all too prevelent to 12 people when they sit down and really start to think!

  77. MV says:

    UVA RAPE HOAX FALLOUT REPORT:

    Jackie is hated by Sabina R. Ederly, Emily Renda and Teresa Sullivan, for making them look like naive fools.
    Sabina R. Ederly, Emily Renda and Teresa Sullivan are hated by feminists, for making them look like naive fools.
    Feminists are hated by the womankind, for making them look like naive fools.

    And manginas and white knights are just standing by and scratching their non-existing testicles, not knowing which side to defend in this multilevel catfight.

    Therefore, gentlemen, I propose a toast to our dear brave ally Jackie, the glorious “femme fatale” who, through her great feminine viles and tricks, delivered a terrible swift mortal stroke to the dreaded Hysteriocracy and, practically overnight, turned it into a bottomless pit of depression, rage and cannibalism.

    Cheers to Jackie!

  78. Frugal Nerd says:

    IBB is correct in that:

    1. The fraternities have every right to sue over this and have a favorable case.
    2. Rolling Stone put itself at risk by publishing the article without fact checking the story.
    3. UVa put itself at risk as soon as it shut down the fraternities.

    The biggest problem for the frats is keeping manginas and feminazis off the jury.

    BTW, I am officially declaring all feminists and feminist supporters insane.

    Definition of insanity: Performing the same action over and over again expecting a different result.

    Evidence: Tawana Brawley, Duke lacrosse team, Jameis Winston, and now Jackie.

    Diagnosis: insane.

  79. Frugal Nerd says:

    MV:

    “Therefore, gentlemen, I propose a toast to our dear brave ally Jackie, the glorious “femme fatale” who, through her great feminine viles and tricks, delivered a terrible swift mortal stroke to the dreaded Hysteriocracy and, practically overnight, turned it into a bottomless pit of depression, rage and cannibalism.”

    Don’t get cocky – they will be back with another false rape claim. Mark my words. They will wait a few years until the dust settles, but they will try this again. They are too invested in “rape culture.”

  80. Boxer says:

    Don’t get cocky – they will be back with another false rape claim. Mark my words. They will wait a few years until the dust settles, but they will try this again. They are too invested in “rape culture.”

    I’d bet it will be weeks, rather than years, but yeah. We’ll be laughing at the kooky feminists again soon. No question about it.

  81. Don’t get cocky – they will be back with another false rape claim. Mark my words. They will wait a few years until the dust settles, but they will try this again. They are too invested in “rape culture.”

    I’d bet it will be weeks, rather than years, but yeah. We’ll be laughing at the kooky feminists again soon. No question about it.

    Yes. The ONLY question that really matters here is WILL the university that is investgating this handle things the way FSU did (that is, do nothing at all because it is a criminal matter) OR will they take unilateral action teh way UVa did and be libel? I’m going to guess because of lawduits/money schools will reluctantly swallow “red pills” here, especially if this starts to cost people in power their jobs.

  82. “nothing will happen if those young men at UVa don’t do anything”

    I agree, they should sue, and that’s probably what I would do if I were them. But they might not want the newspapers to lead with “(fraternity guy’s name) fights college that called him a rapist” for the next year or two.

  83. Frugal Nerd says:

    Some college/university administrations may very well start swallowing red pills out of necessity – but don’t underestimate the power of being defunded by the Department of Education for not following Yes means Yes standards. Some may choose to risk a civil lawsuit in order to keep the funding comming int from the state/feds.

    The silver lining to a school choosing the federal and/or state funding is this may make it to the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds of due process which would put the entire ymy system at grave risk of being struck down as unconstitutional.

  84. Eidolon says:

    I’ve heard some people argue that this sort of thing (i.e. what the alleged journalist was trying to do) actually works better with weak cases, and therefore the highly publicized cases are chosen such that they will lose.

    Ferguson is a great example — I think racism is almost certainly negligible among cops, and even I think there must be a case that happened in the last year that shows more evidence of racism than what Darren Wilson did. But imagine if they picked a winner of a case: they make a big stink, cop gets charged, cop is swiftly punished, case closed. This actually weakens the “there is no justice for black people” case because it demonstrates the opposite. It works better if the story is fishy and uncertain, because when they lose they can pretend it was the forces of evil white privilege denying them justice.

    I think this was intended to be the same; Erdely intended to tell a sensational story that would be unverifiable and thus could be used to demonstrate “rape culture,” as in “Jackie had this awful stuff happen to her (nevermind whether we can prove it; it was years ago and all the evidence is long gone, just go with us here) and nobody did anything about it. Rape culture.” Worse case it’s he said-she said, you can’t prove it didn’t happen, why are you trying so hard to deny that rape happens, do you deny that rape is a real problem on campus, etc. The only real mistake (from Erdely’s perspective) was picking an extra outlandish story and a particularly untrustworthy person to tell it. If “Jackie” hadn’t given so many details, if she had just kept it a bit more vague, there’d be no way to rebut her story at all.

  85. Frugal Nerd says:

    Eidolon,

    That is a good point – the only problem is the feminists keep choosing to publicize cases that are demonstrably, verifiably false and ruining people’s reputations in the process. Darren Wilson needed to be investigated because there was verifiable proof that he ended the life of a young man. These false rape allegations are made with no evidence of any possible wrongdoing whatsoever.

  86. “don’t underestimate the power of being defunded by the Department of Education”

    Exactly. You simply can’t sue for more than the government provides. No judge would award that much.

    Write your Congressmen. Tell them witch hunts have to stop, and the “dear colleague” letter should be recycled into toilet paper.

  87. MV says:

    From the original Rolling Stone story:

    When Jackie finished talking, Eramo comforted her, then calmly laid out her options. If Jackie wished, she could file a criminal complaint with police. Or, if Jackie preferred to keep the matter within the university, she had two choices. She could file a complaint with the school’s Sexual Misconduct Board, to be decided in a “formal resolution” with a jury of students and faculty, and a dean as judge. Or Jackie could choose an “informal resolution,” in which Jackie could simply face her attackers in Eramo’s presence and tell them how she felt; Eramo could then issue a directive to the men, such as suggesting counseling. Eramo presented each option to Jackie neutrally, giving each equal weight. She assured Jackie there was no pressure – whatever happened next was entirely her choice.

    (http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/a-rape-on-campus-20141119)

    So, here we have it: Official 3-tier campus rape prevention system:

    1) IF rape THEN GOTO the police and put the rapist behind bars.
    2) IF serious buyer’s remorse THEN GOTO University’s Sexual Misconduct Board AND formally kick your partner out of college.
    3) IF slight buyer’s remorse THEN GOTO University’s Sexual Misconduct Board AND informally publicly drag your partner through the mud.

    Faced with unfortunate story of “Jackie”, I feel it is in the best interest of better campus rape prevention that we should officially add one more tier:

    4) IF being an untouched virgin but craving attention THEN GOTO National Media AND report a gang rape in a pile of broken glass.

  88. Flip says:

    In a just world, Sailer would get a Pulitzer Price for his stories on this.

  89. Tam the Bam says:

    MV :- “4) IF being an untouched virgin but craving attention THEN GOTO National Media AND report a gang rape in a pile of broken glass.”
    I think it’s quite telling that in the 3 Musketeers’ accounts, Jackie specifically summoned the alleged target of her lusts, “Randall”. He being no fool (expecting to confront a violent maniac. Or even a man, raping his friend) had the others of their very recently formed little gang tag along.
    Jackie was a little discomfited by this, and this made, or she made “Cindy” hang back at the alleged scene. Jackie only wanted to talk to the boys. Of that poor traumatized and disoriented Jackie was absolutely certain.
    Seems girls who have just been monstrously violated despise fellow females offering comfort, or …

  90. MV says:

    @Tam the Bam

    …or girls know that “women know women” and another girl might easily see through their BS.

  91. MV says:

    This debunked hoax is great for another reason:

    Feminists don’t really care if you call them “liars”. It’s like calling men “men”.

    But to call a feminist an “incompetent liar” – this is akin to calling a man an “impotent man”.

    Auch! It hurts!

  92. hoellenhund2 says:

    The Vanishing Male Worker: How America Fell Behind

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/upshot/unemployment-the-vanishing-male-worker-how-america-fell-behind.html?abt=0002&abg=0&_r=0

    Interesting article, thanks for sharing. Many of the comments are pretty much misandric, although that’s hardly surprising. This one is particularly hilarious:

    I am a divorce attorney, and I have seen first hand the family destruction caused by men no longer being productive. Years ago women worked part time, if at all, while men worked full time. Now, it’s much more common for women to work full time while their husbands stay home, isolated and depressed. They hide bottles of booze in the garage or smoke pot and just drift away. Needless to say, their wives are so frustrated with them that divorce becomes an option. What these women tell me is they don’t care how much their guy makes. They simply want a partner.

    Women seem much stronger emotionally than men at times like this. They are more realistic about what must be done to survive. They put their families first, chuck their egos and get to work.

    You just have to lone the casual nonsensical female supremacism of average tradcons and slimeball lawyers patting themselves on the back.

  93. Wait, who’s the bystander in Boston guy? Has a lot of time on his hands to personally respond to so many comments.

    Have you been on a college campus in the past 15 years? I was a crime reporter in a major college town. And yes, the horse shit is that bad. Yes, the fear should be “over dramatic.” There was a reason I was completely and immediately clear with every girl—yeah, we can have fun now, but I promise I will never talk to you again. Still want to do this?

    Yes, Boston buddy, yes they do. Which is fine.

    But no, I will by no means take any chance with my career and my family’s livelihood. Make a dramatic declaration? You bet your Bostonian ass I will.

    Now we have smartphones with video cameras. Thank God. Never had an unsatisfied customer, but why the hell would you risk it (especially in college these days)?

  94. Pingback: Guilty until proven innocent, and nothing proves you innocent. | Dalrock

  95. Pingback: Just survive somehow: A guide for college men

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s