Hofstra Gang Rape Hoax
 

What do y'all think of this -

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_289774.html

Thank heavens for these boys that one of them filmed it on their camera - but YUCK! The whole thing is just nasty - consensual or not!

Also, was that film headed for YouTube?? :eek:

Living in 2009 - strange world!!

I agree that the whole situation is nasty.

This may be a too repressive view of female sexuality, but I don't think it's in the normal range of behavior to want to have sex with five guys on the same occasion.

I think any decent men should recognize that there's probably something wrong with the woman in question if it appears that she does want to do so. In my opinion, she may be in poor mental health or impaired by drugs and alcohol.

I'm not saying that the legal standard should make it impossible for a woman to consent to this kind of sexual encounter, just that if you are a decent human being at all, you should refrain from participating because it's so unlikely that it's a positive thing for her.

I have no idea what would make guys want to participate in that. It also seems way out of the normal range. Even if they aren't technically raping her, it seems so likely to be unhealthy mentally and emotionally that I don't get it, unless you actually like the idea of victimizing someone with your buddies.

Congratulations, guys at Hofstra. You aren't rapists. You're just dumb perverts.

I get very angry at the woman when this type of thing happens. Although it shouldn't, it affects the credibility of ALL women so that when another young woman really IS gang raped, people think of cases like this and wonder if they are lying. And, what is the motive in lying about something like this???

^^Not to mention that these kinds of charges ruin lives, even if they are ultimately found to be untrue. The accused continue to carry that stigma.

Of course, in this situation, they should probably bear some sort of stigma, because that is nasty and troubling all around.

Just to be clear:

Since you're proposing that it may not be in the normal range of behavior for both men and women, that means that all 6 participants are either dumb perverts or mentally and emotionally unstable. Or, both.

What's good for the goose (women) is good for the gander (men). And vice versa.

I hope they press charges on her. She could have ruined the lives of those involved, not to mention that the time that was spent investigating her case could have been used ot help real victims.

It's not so much a "repressive view of female sexuality" as much as it is simply a horrifically near-sighted and egocentric view of other people.

This.

this is really sad and judging by the comments, this will give many an excuse to say that most women lie about rape when in fact many women who have been raped don't report it at all.

Unfortunately I think this also encourages men to video sexual encounters without a woman's knowledge.

Then women may make it known that they were filmed without their knowledge. They should not say that the sex was nonconsensual because they are embarassed and have regrets (if that's what happened in this instance).

Since she has recanted her story and there is no evidence to the contrary, this all boils down to women and men being more selective and cautious when it comes to sex; and not just when it comes to birth control and wearing protection. Casual sex changes in meaning and consequences with changes in social norms and technology.

Yeah I'm suggesting that, but for very different reasons.

I think perhaps a significant percentage of men (maybe not a majority) wouldn't mind attempting a sexual encounter with five women. I don't think that makes them abnormal because for the most part, and I think studies bear this out, more men than women are comfortable with simply physical encounters and aren't bothered by the idea of being perceived as "sluts." (This may be a bad thing socially, but it doesn't mean it's untrue.)

On the other hand, I don't think the majority of men want to be part of a five guy posse involved with sex with a crazy person.

So I think it means something bad and unhealthy about everyone involved, but not exactly the same bad and unhealthy thing.

Please explain.

ETA: I'm just thinking about this more. Do you think it is normal in the sense of being in the statistical middle to want to have this kind of encounter if you are female? Do you think the majority of women who would consent are healthy and unimpaired? Or is it egocentric of me to assume that it would be a positive thing generally if people didn't try to have sex with people when that sex was likely to be harmful to the other person?

Or is it just my easy willingness to pass judgment of other people's sexual behavior?

I don't think you understood what I meant. This gives some guys a "convenient" excuse to video women without their knowledge in the future, ("Oh, I video all my partners cuz I don't want to get a rape charge! <wink wink>. Want to see some of my best work?").

I don't approve of what this woman did, or other women who cry rape when it was consentual. Not only did this chick make women open to more speculation, but she also might have encouraged more men to video sex with ladies without consent, which is NOT OK.

I did, and was picking up where your point left off.

Much more the second than the first - I'll agree that the woman has a higher-than-average chance of having "issues" of some sort, but that's all the further I'm willing to go. It's clear you're OK with going further - that's fine, and it's certainly your right, but to me that seems unnecessarily judgmental, even borderline evangelical.

Sexual mores are a snake basket - it's just so easy to run them right into religious, ethical and personal beliefs that may or may not apply. We don't know at all whether a five-dude gangbang is actually 'harmful' for this woman - we don't know what she enjoys, where her sexual preferences lie, or to what extent she believes this was actually an assault. We don't have much, if any, insight into her internal motivation - so applying our own motives to it seems, well, egocentric. As if that's the "only" or "best" way. I don't mean that to be insulting to you at all - we all do it, to an extent - but I'm not particularly a fan, especially for something like sex, where social conditioning is so strong.

The notion of sexual 'deviance' as indicative of personal, ethical or religious short-comings is, in many ways, a self-fulfilling prophecy - one driven, historically, by institutions and constructs that seek to keep sexuality in the forefront, but control it to some advantage. I'd prefer to let it stay in the bedroom, and judge this woman based on her actions afterward, which seem much more relevant and open to analysis.

Sure. I'll buy that as some level, but I also think we can learn from other people's experience and use it to try to avoid misery or to act ethically.

It may just be the case that I don't read of many happy reports of sexual encounters like the one described and that they are out there. (I'm not sure why or where I would read about them, but that's another issue.) But it seems to be that they are far more likely to involve ill mental health and victimization than not.

I don't actually go around quizzing folks about their sex lives to pass judgment. But once you make the news for having to retract your false rape claim or for filming a women without her knowledge while you and your buddies have sex with her, it's another story.

What are the ethics of sex, beyond consent? Who dictates these? There really isn't a good ethical standard, which is why laws are based really only on consent (and related elements to protect children or the mentally impaired).

This is really confirmation bias at its finest. I have no idea how many 5-man gangbangs happen, but I can guarantee I'd only hear about the ones where something goes wrong. Kind of like how I only hear about planes that are hijacked or crash.

Yeah, that's fair enough, I'm just saying we shouldn't extend this too far, because we simply don't know beyond the specifics of this case ... and even then, we're inferring a lot.

I agree with you. We live in a culture with different mores for men and women. The woman in this consensual scenario went much further outside the rules of culturally sanctioned behavior than did the men. That doesn't mean she's right or wrong, crazy or sane...it just means we have to look at her behavior in that context when we try to understand what happened.

Consider a non-sexual example. My sister, a social worker, was trying to help a family in the projects. One very troubled child in the family was eating the cockroaches in the apartment. Now it turns out that cockroaches are edible, they are considered food in some cultures, and the child wasn't in immediate physical danger from eating them. But that's not really the issue. Our culture says that cockroaches are disgusting vermin, not food. This child's violation of the cultural taboo was a strong signal that something was terribly wrong -- that the child viewed herself as lowly like vermin, or that she was going to extremes to disgust and offend her family. You couldn't understand what was going on in that family in the absence of the cultural taboo.
________
red headed Cam

You must not follow the major airlines on Twitter.

AmericanAir: had 50000 flights today with no incident. Click here for more details.

I see what you're trying to do here, because I tend to use extreme analogies, but it's really not comparable to what UGA was trying to say.

When most people talk about differences between men and women and what women "should and shouldn't do," they are typically not talking about socially created subjective norms. People are often coming from the "it's not acceptable because it isn't what women tend to DO (read: it isn't natural for women)" standpoint, which is complete crap of course.

If this woman chose to defy socially constructed gender norms and have a train run on her, that's her business and, like KSig said, we wouldn't know had those fools not taped her and she had not accused them of rape. There's a difference between analyzing the notion that she's defying gender norms/the men are conforming gender norms versus appearing to say "SOMETHING IS WRONNNNNNNG...maybe it wasn't consensual because women don't DO this...or maybe it was consensual but only because she's craaaaaaaaaaaazy...but either way the men are at fault for either raping her or taking advantage of a crazy woman."

ETA: And on that note, most of the women on this board are defying gender norms in their personal and professional lives. We do it because WE CAN DO WHATEVER THE HELL WE WANT TO. It is both a conscious defiance and a subconscious defiance. But, instead of questioning why we defy them, it makes more sense to challenge why these garbage gender norms (for men and women) are taught, in the first place, and work on tearing them down. That is one of my life's purposes. Amen. :)

I think most ethical conduct requires that we don't hurt other people. Sure, there are exceptions: everything from legal punishments for crimes, to war, to sadomasochistic sex.

But in most cases of human interaction, one can generally conclude that if your own behavior is likely to do another person harm physically or emotionally, it might be more ethical to avoid doing that harm. Legally, I think the standard should be based on consent and I think people should be presumed competent to give consent pretty broadly. But there's a whole lot of behavior that can be legal at one standard but actually require a higher standard to be ethical or moral, and I don't see it as harmful to address that.

Yep.

If I were trying to evaluate the woman's behavior morally, I don't see a whole lot different in the initial sex than had the women had sex with each of the five men over a people of five days, five weeks, five months, whatever. You're/I'm either hung up on lasting monogamy or we're not.

But because having sex with five guys on one occasion is, as best as I can tell based on the limited info. available, so far out of what's socially normal with such a high price for the woman to pay in reputation or esteem, her willingness to engage in it points to something being seriously wrong.

Because something, IMO, is seriously wrong, it becomes unethical for those guys to pursue that kind of sex with her.

In some theoretical universe where sexual mores are different, this wouldn't necessarily be the case, but in 2009 America, I think it is the case.

On a practical level, I suspect that the "something being wrong with her" is closely tied to her willingness to claim she was raped and that's all the more reason for guys not to pursue this kind of encounter.

UGA's initial point about something being wrong didn't seem to be about her bogus rape claim. It seemed to be about her (alleged) willingness to participate.

Are women fragile flowers who absolutely never have control over their own minds and bodies? Can't men and women just be (prepare for gratuitous morality slap) careless whoresluts just for shits and giggles? (rhetoricals) She wanted to be the hole in the wall and they wanted to stick it.

Just to make sure my response accurately portrays your feelings, you're arguing that the moral responsibility for the guys is to avoid having consensual group sex with this woman, because it might harm her reputation in 2009 America?

Most of my comments about her were about her willingness to participate.

While in a social vacuum, women might be free to be careless whoresluts, we're not living in a social vacuum.

Assuming that there aren't biological forces that push most women toward monogamy (and I kind of think there are: I'll try to find a link), the social consequences of being a careless whoreslut if you are female are serious enough that most healthy women decide that it isn't worth it IF the thought even makes it to that level of conscious thought.

Women who don't see the risk or don't care about the risk are atypical, and, while I'm not sure which comes first, are likely to be socially and emotionally atypical too.

We can wonder if having no sexual mores would result in a flowering of sexual pleasure for women, but the women on the forefront of this moment might pay a pretty high social price.

No. I'm suggesting that a women who has so little regard for her social and sexual relationships that she'll willingly engage in this kind of behavior in a public restroom, I might as well add, might not be entirely healthy and able to judge what she actually wants.

The moral responsibility kicks in from the guys because it's kind of a culturally debasing act and her actual willingness is probably pretty hard to judge.

ETA: It might be cool to live in a world where everyone did exactly as he or she choose without any concern for what other people think, but I don't think most people live in that world.

Someone risk-taking enough to engage in a 5-man gangbang as I think you put it earlier is, I think, risk-taking at a level that indicates a desire for self-harm, even if the risk-taking is mainly in the social or emotion realm, rather than physical harm.

What does this sentence mean as it pertains to your posts in this thread?

Your posts in this thread aren't an analysis of the normative behaviors of men and women. They are attempting to attribute meaning where there may be none in this specific instance; and attempting to attribute blame where there may be none, beyond opinions of morality.

Don't bother finding that link with that easily dismissed research. There has been little to no reliable research on the "nature" of monogamy in humans. It is most likely a combination of the social, cultural, and biological. Social scientists know that these things can be learned but there has been no concrete proof that these things are biological.

Decide. Exactly.

Other women may decide differently. There is nothing inherently deviant about that nor ascriptive about the former decision.

There are social consequence to sexual behavior.

If the consequences didn't exist, behavior and the long term happiness as a result of that behavior might be different.

I think you are wrong about the nature of monogamy, especially as it has allowed females to provide for their offspring. The study I was thinking of contrasted the different evolutionary benefits to males and females of monogamy vs. having multiple reproductive partners if you look at the evolutionary "goal" of getting your genetic material into the next generation. Females benefited from one long term partner providing material support to allowing offspring to reach reproductive age. Males benefited from getting the sperm out there to as many different females as they could.

How in the world could you imagine that there is no legitimate scientific knowledge in the area of mating habits and their benefits?

ETA: I wish I had quoted. It seems like I either misread or there was a pretty big change in the second section.

None of this translates to women being biologically inclined toward monogamy.

Everyone has read or heard about that ONE study. It has been used to support everything from patriarchy to male promiscuity to why women should stay in the home to why women should be paid less. The only thing it REALLY supports is that women are able to be impregnated and men are not.

And here's the spoon ("where's the spoon? aha!"): Women don't have to be monogamous to get pregnant and pregnant women don't have to be monogamous. Dammmmmmmn dammmmmmmn dammmmmmmmmn!!!!

I think it probably points to a lot more than that.

What was your point, again?

What was yours?

Oh yeah, you're the Gender Morality Police and you think that women are born with a monogamy gene.

Bleh.

Nope. I don't think women are born with a monogamy gene. I think women may have a stronger biologically motivated interest in monogamy than men do. And I think this is social reinforced.

I don't think I limit my policing to just gender morality. You get to enjoy it on a variety of topics.

The only thing that motivates biology is genetics. (genetics are driven by dna) If there is no "monogamy gene" then there is no biological basis for monogamy. I think there is a lazy gene, though, and someone might be too lazy to get another lover.

A "stronger biologically motivated interest" is different than your original stance of "nature of monogamy." I still don't agree, but it is different.

As I said before, there is no conclusive evidence regarding nurture but social scientists do not dismiss it altogether. It's simply the case that we have never studied the nature of humans and most animals before the social learning process began.

The problem comes with positing a nature argument for female monogamy and not for male monogamy. This is all very tautological and is working backwards to try to biologically explain gender norms.

You sure about the bold part?

The "nature of monogamy" came in the discussion of the study. My first reference to it was women feeling a biological push toward monogamy. I think you can see what the original claim was.

I know this is might be heresy to you, but I think there are biological reasons for the social norms, rather than social norms looking for justification in biology. ETA: or maybe you meant they were in a perpetual loop of truth, but that seems to work against your sworn commitment to break them down.

ETA: I don't mean this in terms of the female subject of the original post, so much, except that she might face more serious consequences from the encounter in terms of pregnancy and even sexually transmitted diseases, many of which are usually more easily transmitted from male to female than the reverse. Biology may represent another area where the encounter is higher risk for her than the guys.

UGA, here's the thing ... not too long ago (as late as the '50s, even, in some places) folks were placed into mental institutions (or, even worse, the seminary) for being gay. It was viewed as a possibly-curable mental imbalance, a sort of psychosis, and the "societal/moral repercussions" were drastic and real. Yet, today, nobody would claim that there "must be something wrong with that boy" if he likes other boys, at least not in polite and educated company.

The fact of the matter is ethics, and especially morals, are temporal. It's the most natural and beautiful thing in the world to marry the person you love, right? Unless it's your brother. Or you have power of attorney over a disputed estate that they are involved with. Or whatever - we could go down the line with similar examples.

You can argue that the societal repercussions are so real and so drastic that this individual SIMPLY MUST have some issues in order to cultivate or subject herself to those repercussions - but that's a value assumption based entirely on your experiences and value set, your own desires (both sexual desires, and desire not to subject yourself to society's disapproval), without any regard for the thought that maybe, perhaps, you're viewing it through a narrow (and, as I stated before, egocentric) lens. Before we judge these people for bringing down the wrath of polite, gentile society upon themselves with their perverted sexual proclivities, I think there are three elements that sort of go against your logic in this discussion:

1 - We don't know, and have little to no right to know, what happens behind closed doors for 99% of people - hence, lines like "in my experience" ring hollow.
2 - We don't know, and have absolutely no right to know, what drives individuals to engage in acts we deem callous, deviant, disgusting, or we otherwise disapprove of.
3 - Our response to (1) and (2) say as much about ourselves as the individuals involved.

I don't get where you're going with lines like "...except she might face more serious consequences from the encounter in terms of pregnancy and even sexually transmitted diseases, many of which are usually more easily transmitted from male to female than the reverse. Biology may represent another area where the encounter is higher risk for her than the guys", either - it seems like a pseudo-scientific rationale for an otherwise-opinion-based argument. You certainly have the right to judge, if you'd like, but I simply can't go along with your reasoning in doing so - the logic simply doesn't extend, especially if it's based on societal or moral/ethical bases without the concomitant and tacit understanding that these things are both not set in stone and are wholly and completely temporal.

This thread is kinky and titillating.

Women were also exorcised, placed in counseling, given inappropriate medical procedures, incarcerated, and placed in mental institutions for defying gender norms.

A woman who liked to have sex (God forbid a woman sought an orgasm rather than a baby) or who was considered "loose" was considered a sign of spiritual turmoil or social problems.

That still occurs to an extent in this society (i.e. girls who are truant or run away from home are more likely to alarm parents and get arrested than boys); and I have no doubt that there are segments of this society where archaic social controls are still in place. They certainly exist in some other societies.