Community contribution

I do not support rape, SA, or victim-blaming in any way. I am personally a victim of sexual violence myself—I refused and was forced through threats and violence, with heavy intoxication also involved. I'm not saying this to play the victim, but to make my position clear. That said, when a woman accuses a man and the man turns around and accuses the woman, automatically taking the woman's side does not help victims or destigmatize coming forward. Both are potential victims, and demonizing one as the attacker without examining the evidence is dangerous. If Male 1's allegations are true and he could not consent, then you have done a horribly evil thing. Everything I present here is alleged. I think you have to be an idiot to engage in sexual activity with someone who is intoxicated because consent gets muddled, and even if it isn't legally rape, it's ethically questionable at best. But if the police report is accurate, both men she explicitly consented to have a threesome with may have been much more intoxicated than she was. If your argument is that intoxication = non-consent = rape, then there's an obvious double standard, because you might have an easier time arguing that she's the rapist. Police report: [https://lucycraig.blog/media/95](https://lucycraig.blog/media/95) There are also alleged text messages where, seemingly without coercion and of her own volition, she says she liked what happened that night and that none of the sexual activity was illegal. It's true that victims can placate their abusers, but aside from that night, I can't find alleged evidence of these men abusing her. She later told Male 2: “everyone needs to grow up cause sexuality and sex and s--- is changing and stuff like this is going to become more common, I'm also really open minded tho, I luv you king.” Her tone changes later, when her reputation is tarnished and she can't attend a party with her alleged rapists. She says, “I knew this was going to happen. The woman will always get the short end of the stick. Y'all aren't my friends. Y'all are covering your asses,” and, “Let's be clear that 90% of what happened that night was not consensual.” I understand manipulation happens and trauma can put people into denial, but the timing and the contradiction between “everything was legal” and “90% wasn't consensual” are staggering. She also records a phone call. I haven't seen anything suggesting Male 1 knew he was being recorded, so she may have been trying to trap him by changing her tone. During the call, he says, “You did tell me you were sober, by the way,” and “You did, you said you hadn't been anywhere,” which she denies. She herself describes the two men as heaving or passing out, yet when she says she wasn't sober, she treats that as rape. What does that make her? I'm not saying intoxication can't constitute rape, it can and it should, but it's still a complication that should be considered on a case-by-case analysis, especially with multiple people who have different levels of intoxication involved. Scott Kretzschmar, who didn't do drugs or participate in the sex acts (though she accused him of snorting K off her body), said, “she didn't seem inebriated at all,” and said she told him she was good. Scott Norris, an independent witness who saw the “free pussy” message and was initially concerned, said, “She was conversational with people, and that alleviated whatever concerns I had from the text before.” Without context, the message sounds like she's being pimped out, but she had explicitly agreed to a threesome. Obviously, agreeing to something doesn't mean agreeing to everything. Consent can be retracted before or during an act. But the context that what was happening in that room was unselective debauchery makes the “free pussy” message less rapey. [https://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/News-articles/District-Attorney-statement-regarding-Jane-Doe-v.-Cornell-University-et-al](https://www.tompkinscountyny.gov/News-articles/District-Attorney-statement-regarding-Jane-Doe-v.-Cornell-University-et-al) This contains her statement and a legal analysis, as well as what I can find of her testimony in the police report. She has supposedly changed parts of her account, but I don't have the details. The DA's analysis is important because it says prosecutors and investigators assumed her allegations were true for purposes of review and still determined that the alleged facts did not constitute a crime. It specifically states that her credibility “was never in question.” Her statement described agreeing to the threesome because of her attraction to Male 1 and said she was “pretty ok with having this threesome.” She said the sexual conduct stopped when Male 1 became sleepy and was no longer fully erect. She told Male 2 they needed to stop to make sure Male 1 was okay, and Male 2 stopped. While Male 1 slept, Male 2 began dry heaving. She took care of him while waking Male 1 to check on him. Male 1 later woke up and asked about making it a foursome. She said “Hell No” because she understood that would mean participating in anal sex. She also stated that around 5:45am, she said she was tired and needed to turn in, and “both guys stopped the threesome with [her] as far as [she] can remember.” The DA's legal analysis states that under New York Penal Law 130.05, sexual assault requires proof that the sexual act occurred without consent, which can involve forcible compulsion, mental incapacitation, physical helplessness, or certain circumstances where the victim clearly expressed non-consent. I recommend you look at the DA's statement for yourself, because it goes into detail as to how her case doesn't qualify. So, to conclude: based on the evidence we have, I think Male 1 has a better claim to victimhood than Jane Doe, although perhaps they're all victims in some way—not necessarily of rape, but certainly of demoralizing decisions and activities. Later regret may indicate coercion, but it does not establish lack of consent at the time. Consent can be withdrawn before or during an act, but not after unless it was never given. If you say it was definitely rape because she became too intoxicated to consent, you need to apply that same standard to Male 1. Otherwise, you're proving my point: it's not about protecting victims; it's about a bandwagon. You are not a good person for shaming another potential victim because he was a man. That's bad karma, and I hope it never comes for you.