Has anyone seen reporting on this story that has been able to confirm what percentage of sexual assault complaints originate from the fraternities at UVA? Seems like it would be a relevant piece of information.

How so (for this particular story)?

Because we are now being admonished to pay no attention to the fact that the Phi Psi gang rape likely is a fabrication and instead focus on the fact that UVA has a rape problem, especially at their fraternities.

I'd like to have those allegations quantified, not just blindly accept them.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

My prediction? Sabrina Rubin Erdely and Jackie will become cause celebs for the college rape crisis industry and radical feminists. They will be feted with speaking engagements and "bravery" awards.

We have a not-insignificant number of folks in this country for whom there is no such thing as truth and falsehood, and objective facts are meaningless. Unfortunately, many of them have gone into journalism. The end always justifies the mean.

I never did deny there's a problem. This thread is not abiout rape culture or any of that. It's about the alleged rape at UVA, which doesn't look like it happened. I'm all for bystander training and rape prevention. There probably is a rape crisis not just on college campuses, but everywhere. It's a societal thing.

I have substantial reservations about the reporter. I am waiting for the investigative reports that lay out more facts. Again, sound journalism would have required more diligent fact-checking prior to publication. The causes for that (and making an "agreement" with "Jackie") have yet to be disclosed. There is evidence of fabrication but the degree and by whom has not been established.

This is an overstatement. The friends all believe she experienced a sexual assault that night.

All believe? I would say that's not an accurate read of what they said.

Anyway, I deliberately used the words "it appears" because we still don't know definitely if Jackie experienced any assault at all. I was also still leaning towards the "something MUST have happened to her" explaination. But the newest details of catfishing make that no longer the most likely explaination.

I think that Jackie may have some serious mental health issues, whether they were caused by a sexual assault or rape, or perhaps present long before the alleged/imagined rape, who knows at this point. And frankly, it doesn't make one bit of difference in my day-to-day life. As for the people who are obsessing over this article, they are starting to look bizarre in my opinion. I think that the greek life should be reinstated, but not at the price of making the entire greek community look like we are throwing tantrums. Seriously, there are less than two weeks left of the semester, do we really need freaking lobbyists to ensure that some Christmas socials happen? This entire situation is upsetting and did paint greeks in a bad light, but people need to get a grip.

Disagree. This is a situation which horrifies any fraternity man and especially alumnus volunteers. To think that your chapter which you have poured so much into could be kicked off campus because of false allegations like this without even a cursory investigation by the university or even your national organization is very troubling.

And what about our undergrads who could be labeled and maybe even charged and convicted as rapists mainly because they are fraternity men and y'know.. everyone knows we're all a bunch of rapists... because rape culture.

This isn't just a university issue. It's a cultural issue. I do a lot of child custody cases and it is very common for the mother to make false allegations regarding physical or sexual violence against the father... and if she makes it all up? There are basically no consequences.

And with some states adopting those "yes means yes" laws, we are now putting men accused of rape in the unique position of having to prove their innocence rather than the state being required to prove their guilt.

Do you have some actual statistics to cite on this? Perhaps your clients just picked some crappy people to marry, perhaps that might be part of the reason they are getting divorced, because they make crap up. But to say that represents our culture at large, I'd like to see some facts to back that up.

You know damn well that's not what these laws do.

You have been misinformed.

ETA: There is no "state" in the case of affirmative consent laws (yet) because the laws only apply to college kids. (Because that where there is a "crisis", natch.) But it most certainly does shift the burden of proof.

An accuser comes to the university with a claim of rape. The accused says they had consenual sex. Under the new law, the accused must prove that they obtained ongoing consent, throughout the entire sexual encounter. If they can't prove it, they are guilty of rape.

For more, DeltaBetaBaby, I suggest you read the editorial debate between Jonathan Chait and Ezra Klien.

It would be impossible to compile statistics like that, but in my practice, this is not at all uncommon. Certain opposing parties I encounter, I can even predict exactly what they'll do. They usually begin by accusing their husband of being physically abusive and/or having a substance abuse issue. Then, almost like clockwork, once that fails, there are allegations of sexual abuse of the children.

Googling the subject, child molestation allegations in divorce, I found quite a few websites, some which claimed a very low % of the allegations were false, while I found another which reported that 77% of allegations of child sex abuse in divorce were false. I question how one would even begin to come up with accurate numbers on that subject, but here is what I have experienced. Women make these allegations because it usually results in them getting an immediate "win" in court. Courts take a "better safe than sorry" approach and will typically order emergency custody to the mother while the Department of Human Services investigates. Even if the charges are totally made up, they false reporter is never charged with a crime and there's no civil remedy.

I am presently working on a case where the mother has reported over 30 times to child protective services trying to get them to find some abuse. So far, she has done so to no avail.

There is a HUGE difference between making errors on some of the details of a situation and the situation not having happened at all. This is the most basic of memory research, particularly in terms of memory for traumatic events.

When the primary "evidence" for suggesting it didn't happen is A) the fraternity SAYING they didn't have a party that night, and B) SAYING they didn't have a member with a role at the Aquatic center on campus, I think you're stretching pretty darn far to suggest it "doesn't look like it happened."

Why is what the fraternity is saying suddenly somehow more relevant or believable than what the woman is saying?