Revenge.

The most obvious motive for falsely accusing someone of a crime is apparent in a case at Brown University, where the former co-captain of the mock trial team alleges that he was the victim of what the College Fix calls “an elaborate revenge plot” by a girl on the team. According to a complaint filed by “John Doe,” he was suspended from Brown after “Ann Roe” claimed that he coerced her into performing oral sex, a false accusation he says was inspired by Ann’s jealousy of John’s interest in “Kay Stiles,” another member of the mock trial team.

More than 100 lawsuits have been filed against universities by male students who say they were falsely accused of sexual misconduct and denied due process in the campus kangaroo court system where such accusations are judged as disciplinary proceedings. Feminists who claim there is a “campus rape epidemic” have been dismissive of concerns about false accusations and due process. Feminists contend that false accusations of rape are so rare that this possibility can be ignored, and the question of why women sometimes do lie about rape is treated dismissively. After a high-profile claim of gang-rape at the University of Virginia was exposed as a hoax, Janet Bloomfield examined the motives behind such false accusations: “12 Women Who Lied About Being Raped And Why They Did It.” Despite these concerns, however, states have passed laws and universities have implemented policies based on so-called “affirmative consent” doctrine which effectively makes it impossible for an accused student to prove his innocence. The mere accusation of sexual misconduct is now regarded as tantamount to proof of guilt, as the “John Doe” case at Brown University illustrates.

According to the amended complaint filed Tuesday in a Rhode Island state court, “Ann Roe” is an evil little bitch. OK, the phrase “evil little bitch” is not actually used in the court document, but the story it tells is frightening. John had been depressed over his breakup with his “high school sweetheart” after his freshman year at Brown, and returned to campus for his sophomore year in fall 2014 determined to recover from his heartbreak “by actively dating other women.” John tried flirting with “Kay Stiles,” unsuccessfully, but had better luck with “Ann Roe,” who texted him in November that she was “dying for some sort of human contact” because she hadn’t seen her boyfriend in two months. Four days later, John and Ann hooked up:

After John finished digitally penetrating Ann, she told John that it was her turn. She unzipped John’s pants and pulled them down to John’s ankles with his help. She then proceeded to give John oral sex. . . .

As John neared ejaculation, he asked Ann if he could do so in her mouth. Ann agreed.

After John ejaculated, John and Ann sat down, cuddled, and started kissing again.

Allegedly, I hasten to add, because this is simply John Doe’s version of the story — it’s a typical “he said/she said” case — and so I cannot vouch for John’s courtesy in asking permission to ejaculate in Ann’s mouth.

Pardon me for interrupting the narrative, but am I the only one who notices how the hookup culture produces weird protocols of etiquette? What rules apply in a situation like this? What is considered the appropriate way for a girl to perform oral sex on a boy, and what reciprocal obligations does the boy incur in such a transaction? When did universities become the Sex Police with supervisory authority over such encounters, tasked with ensuring that every action which may occur in these private circumstances is entirely consensual? Isn’t it obvious that this task is ultimately impossible? Criminal courts are the appropriate venue to adjudicate a rape charge, but no district attorney would ever go to court with a “he said/she said” case like the one described in John Doe v. Brown University. When rape is treated as a campus disciplinary matter, however, accused students are denied the legal protections any common criminal would have in a court of law. This in turn enables a vindictive liar to destroy any boy who is foolish enough to hook up with her, which is what John Doe alleges happened with Ann Roe.

The complaint describes a series of text messages between Ann and John that began four days after their Nov. 10, 2014, hookup:

The UC-Irvine mock trial event was coming up in California, and John told Ann to “[r]emember to pretend like you didn’t give me a mind blowing b–job.” She replied, “[o]nly if you remember to pretend you’re not imagining f–king the s– out of me” and “no one will suspect how much you want to [orgasm] inside me.” Ann finished by saying “sounds like we’ve got a plan [winking smile].” However, John was better at pretending than Ann expected, and Ann grew impatient.

John’s texts became short and infrequent. On November 15, 2014, Ann contacted John and asked, “whacha been up to stranger?” John responded that he was busy and couldn’t talk. Ann replied, “All righty no problem, we’ll catch up later. Night!”

The next day, Ann texted John about her mock trial performance and stated, “I wish I could see you in action.”

The next day, November 16, Ann texted John and hinted that she would like to get together. However, John replied that he had to get some work done. Ann responded, “All righty . . . Hit me up sometime if you’re bored [winking smile] see ya!”

On November 19, 2014, Ann told John that she was having boyfriend trouble and wanted him to cheer her up over the weekend. Upon information and belief, she had actually broken up with her boyfriend because of her feelings for John. John, however, declined.

Ann told John that she was “not trying to chase” him, but that he was torturing her and driving her “completely insane.” John told Ann that he had feelings for someone else — Kay, one of her best friends.

Oh, my goodness.

However high John Doe’s SAT score may be, he’s not too smart about women. She gives you oral sex and breaks up with her boyfriend and tells you you’re driving her “completely insane” and then you decide to tell her you’ve got the hots for one of her best friends? To compound his stupidity, John then asked Ann to “put in a good word for him with Kay.” Naturally, Ann badmouthed him, telling Kay that John was an “a–hole” and Ann then “began disparaging John to members of the mock trial team.” After months of conducting a personal vendetta against John, in November 2015, “Ann filed a complaint with the Title IX office accusing John of sexual assault.” In her telling of their encounter, Ann only “submitted” to giving John oral sex “out of fear,” feeling she “had no choice to avoid being raped.” Even though John had text messages from Ann that contradicted her version of events — showing that she was actively pursuing him after their hookup — and although witnesses testified that Ann had told them about their hookup in a way that made it sound “sexy and hot,” John was suspended. His lawsuit says that Brown was wrong to retroactively apply a new “affirmative consent” policy, instituted in 2015, to his 2014 encounter with Ann. The new policy makes it an offense to “manipulate” someone into sex, and John had used that term in a text to Ann, so that he in effect “confessed” to sexual assault as Brown now defines it. Yet reading John Doe’s version of events — corroborated with text messages — the far more plausible interpretation is that Ann, desiring a serious romantic relationship with John, became embittered when she realized that he viewed their hookup as strictly casual and that when she learned John had more serious feelings for her friend Kay, this turned Ann’s bitterness to vindictive rage.

There is only one way that college boys can be safe from false accusations: NEVER TALK TO A COLLEGE GIRL! Warn your sons, America.

“Part of the problem is they’re redefining what consent means.” — Andrew Miltenberg https://t.co/GJ2g4TBsKq pic.twitter.com/UOq6t10qAP — FreeStacy (@Not_RSMcCain) June 1, 2016









Amazon.com Widgets

Share this: Share

Twitter

Facebook



Reddit



Comments