"Student Accused of Rape By 'Mattress Girl' Sues Columbia University"
"
Sulkowicz made life a living hell for Nungesser"
Paul Nungesser, the Columbia University student accused of raping fellow student Emma Sulkowicz, is now suing the university for doing nothing to stop Sulkowicz's harassment campaign against him, which he claims "effectively destroyed" his college experience, reputation, and future career prospects.
His lawsuit contains a wealth of new information about the contested sexual assault, including dozens of messages establishing Sulkowicz's sexual "yearning" for Nungesser, which she sent to him both before and after the alleged incident. (Full text of the lawsuit here, courtesy of KC Johnson.)
17 comments:
No means no, even when I say yes and beg for it. I can still say no someday after you dump me.
He was able to get a bunch of her facebook posts and text messages into the public record without exposing himself to legal claims from her.
Including her pleas for anal.
If the protest thing doesn't work she can always get a job at Wonkette.
The guy should have know what was up when he found out that her all time favorite singer was Sinead O'Conner.
Apparently she'd been insisting that it was a *violent* rape. Not just coerced, not just regretted. He supposedly beat her badly and forced her.
I read through his suit. The other girls who complained after the fact complained of things like... I felt like he would stop seeing me if I didn't give him sex. -and- He kissed me against my will once.
Thus "serial rapist".
I do hope this guy gets a super big settlement from the school.
What in the hell took him so long?
They both need "gofundme" campaigns. That could pit one side of the nation against the other.
What if she's judged to have been mean and hypocritical and just out to get a cool art project?
If she loses she could always be a professional arm wrestler.
The descriptions and texts and Facebook messages in the complaint....wow.
Having a mattress with her all day seems like a convenience.
But she is seriously messed up, as is the art instructor who is assisting in enabling her behavior. And Senator Wahtshername should be sued, big time.
I hope that his lawsuit prevails. By rights, it ought.
Also, a big call-out to Cathy Young, a terrific reporter (this is not new recognition from me, to be clear). She, like Dorothy Rabinowitz, is both intrepid and producing of work that, years later, will be seen then more generally than now as what it is: facts oriented, on point, ethically rigorous, courageous, and, above all, persistently excellent in lacking confusion between facts and agenda, a quality nonpareil.
The anus is an exit, not an entrance.
In males, the urethra serves as a conduit for both sperm and urine.
So, therefore, what, then, Eric?
Anyway:
I stand by the position I took:
I hope that his lawsuit prevails. By rights, it ought.
Also, a big call-out to Cathy Young, a terrific reporter (this is not new recognition from me, to be clear). She, like Dorothy Rabinowitz, is both intrepid and producing of work that, years later, will be seen then more generally than now as what it is: facts oriented, on point, ethically rigorous, courageous, and, above all, persistently excellent in lacking confusion between facts and agenda, a quality nonpareil.
There are all sorts of biological descriptions that could be brought to bear in any given discussion at any given moment. Is this in dispute?
I have to wonder, at this point, if you, Eric the Bat, have some sort of vested interested in *not* seeing justice for Paul Nungesser. Or, at least, not being interested in justice for him if it involves people who are not entirely in line with, approved by you.
What a shame such a thing would be, if so.
Or: Maybe I'm the one who is clueless! It's possible. I certainly have been wrong in my life, and I also have been clueless from time to time as well, and not only that: Sometimes I've been that, over time.
Perhaps you, Eric, have information that, in fact, compellingly proves that Paul Nungesser is guilty as charged and therefore is not worthy of defense. For that reason, you, as an individual, thinks he's not worth defending: because you think he's guilty. Is that what you're saying?
Or is it that you have made the calculation that Nungesser is not worth defending in a serious fashion if that might mean being tainted as having even temporarily joining forces with others, not like yourself, to defend a principle? Is that why you're using his individual case to make points against people whom you don't like?
Stand up, Eric the Bat, and state plain your intentions, not to mention your inclinations.
Pithy comment:
Snark is no stand-in for stating a principle much less living it out.
Post a Comment