This is an INSANE framing of the story. You cannot compare drug-fuelled sex parties to buying land at a country club. The differences are not of degree, but of kind. And completely fails to sharpen what is relevant and what isn't in the case. A much better analogy is gay orgies, because those are very similar to what happened at the frat. And if all this had happened at a gay orgy - it would be a nothing burger. To be clear, many gay guys do not like that kind of debauchery and never attend such gatherings and that's fine. But those that do, well, this is exactly what it entails. Sometimes a lot of fun, sometimes a lot of akwardness, but if you go to a ketamine fuelled party where you start banging a lot of people, you can only claim rape, if *that* happened at some point. In other words, you told someone NO, and they continued anyhow, even after you insisted NO. That didn't happen in a single instance as far as her original testimony goes. Her claim of being raped rests essentially that she was gang banged whilst too intoxicated, but she consented to the k, and consented to the sex acts. Regret should not equal rape. A lot of people - like Helen and you Jesse - are saying that whatever anyone else says, those guys were 'DISGUSTING'. Were they? Why are *they* disgusting - but she isn't? They were all in the same boat - same age, at a party where they chose to attend, they chose do drugs, and chose to have multiple partner sex. Getting consent was drilled into their heads, so they sought it at all times, and stopped whenever she asked to stop (this is according to her own testimony). They're disgusting because of some vulgar Snapchat messages on a whatsapp groups about the very loose lady upstairs? I mean, if that's rape, you might as well lock up the 99% male population, because joking about a very loose lady nearby is basically pre-programmed, the concept drives young guys wild with excitement, and banter is the way men communicate. "Free pussy" and "Is shop still open?" are ways of saying there's a girl who is *really* open minded about having sex with strangers, you can give it a shot - obviously asking for consent first. It is INSANE to claim that those messages mean those men deserve what they got - having their lives ruined - when by her own account many of them were more intoxicated than she was. One of them, inevitably, is claiming HE was raped. When you read the details, it makes it sound even more like a gay orgy (don't read, if you are eating food). . People are saying they should have stopped it. But why exactly? If I went to a gay party where 8 guys in their 20s chose to attend, chose to do drugs, chose to have sex with people they barely knew... should it have been my duty to put a stop to it else I'm a disgusting rape enabler? That's obviously wrong. If I don't like what I see, I can just leave the party. There was only a moral duty to stop things if there had been any sign this was not consensual. It appears that guys came in to check everything was and she insisted it was. She kept insisting so in text messages for days after (I know I'm supposed to dismiss all of that inconvenient evidence due to "trauma processing", but I am one of those weirdos who would rather not remove their head whilst thinking in the middle of moral panic). So maybe the reason is because she's a woman and they're men - as Helen claims. Doesn't sound very equal to me - nor very fair to the women, who at 20, are as mature and responsible as your average gay dude (and boy is that a low bar) to be able to take part in a drug fuelled sex orgy (hey, I'll be honest, they *can* be great) and not cry rape after being disinvited to a party at the same house a week later. You know, there's a parallel universe in which the frat president didn't commit the horrific, catastrophic, life and nation altering mistake of disinviting a girl to a party - where they all just remained friends and remember it for what it was: a wild night of disinhibition, one to probably not do again to such a degree, as things could have gone wrong. But the chronology reveals things only started going wrong... after the gossip began. Which she tried to ignore, but only could for so long. This is where the gay party analogy collapses, for that gossip would have been laugh-filled rather than filled with slut-shaming, spite and, eventually, gang rape inuendo. That's why she got disinvited, not because the men were monsters that used her and discarded her, but because they could sense from the dark and nasty turns the gossip was taking they were about to have their lines ruined. If we are going in with a dumb land deal analogy - it's much more akin to you go to a friend's house who tells you he's doing a dodgy land deal, do you want to take part? You, knowing full well the deal is a tad dodgy, agree because you'll make some money. Seven other guys agree. And then when rumours start emerging that you took part in a deal that was not merely dodgy, but completely illegal, you claim you were the victim of horrific fraud, and that you were raped by those guys too. Now who is the victim in that scenario?

Dude fired for teenaged tweets, white women fired for wearing cornrows to Burning Man, gay bar getting canceled for skeleton costume that looked like blackface. We are so back. advocate.com/news/culture/pi…

This case is becoming such a political circus. How do you appoint someone as a special prosecutor who has already publicly taken a position on the case prior to examining most of the relevant facts?

‼️ Russia planned to attack Spain, France, and Italy using Gerbera drones launched from container ships in the Mediterranean. It is believed that this triggered CIA Director Ratcliffe's visit to Moscow last month to warn Russia against this attack.