A lot of difficult questions within this case:
- What did she consent to? What did she not consent to?
- Did her consent become void due to intoxication? If so, when?
The troubling fact of this case, for me - whether consent was legally given, or not:
Why did “free p***y” excite so many men? Why would men basically line up to take turns with what they thought was a warm, willing body? Even if she was into it, even if she consented, why would you “share” a woman with all of your bros, like she’s a sex doll?
With every new fact coming out, my algorithm swings from left to right, back to left? What exactly was consented?? Am I misled to think the intent of civil suit was cuz she was mad being labeled a slut? Everyone can agree the snapchat texts were vile, but what about jane’s texts right afterwards? This becomes the case for both sides to pit against each other.
As extreme multi partner group tropes become mainstream, they normalize intimacy as a performative group event. In settings like fraternities, this creates a mob mentality: men use performance to bond and gain status among peers, treating a partner as an object rather than a person. Because explicit group content often portrays women as submissive to multiple partners, individual men lose personal accountability, assuming “everyone is into it.”
Something to keep in mind about men’s behaviors.
conclusion
Natalia Bower notes, “we don’t have to call it rape to get mad at it.” To use an old-fashioned word, it was wrong. Tell your daughter, if you must, not to take ketamine with strangers or agree to a threesome in a frat house. But tell your son this, too: Don’t send messages to the group chat offering a drunk woman like a box of doughnuts.
This I can agree on. The rest were a series of very bad choices on both ends, and I’m not sure whose are more incriminating.