Sidechat icon
Join communities on Sidechat Download
I know this is not a poll, but it has to be said: the person or people constantly making the polls biased towards the Cornell rapists need to stop. It's misogynistic, pro-rape, and uncalled for. Knock it off
upvote 205 downvote

default user profile icon
Anonymous 14h

Bro I blocked them and at least 3 posts disappeared 😭😭 the one ab stinky feet kink and Lindsay Clancy like Jesus. Pretty sure this post had comments too? Lawd. I come on here to be mindless not confronted 😭

upvote 37 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 14h

Omg ik it’s so annoying

upvote 11 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous 14h

I’m not the guy posting but It’s all over the news. It’s relevant and people are clearly divided on the issue. I don’t see why polling the question is a problem. Also, how are literally quotes by the alleged victim misogynist or ā€œpro-rapeā€? Isn’t the issue that the evidence suggests she wasn’t raped?

upvote 10 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #3 14h

Well the question is how do you define rape? Is getting fucked while barely conscious and unable to say no after having consented before being in that state rape? What if 5 more guys join in after you only agreed to do a threesome? Terminology seems to be everything, since technically they didn’t use force, but it still wasn’t validly consensual.

upvote 11 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #4 11h

There is a profound difference between voluntary inebriation and incapacitation. And an overwhelming amount of testimonial evidence that supports she wasn’t even close to ā€œbarely consciousā€, in fact, based on the testimony I’ve read she may have been more sober and lucid than some of the men she was initiating and consenting to group sex with. If that’s the standard you’re applying I’d argue her actions more closely aligned with SA than those of the young men.

upvote -4 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #4 11h

She consented prior, based on testimony during, and reaffirmed repeatedly in documented communications the consensual nature afterwards. This is as clear cut as it comes. Even calling the consensual encounter a ā€œgangbangā€ which is explicitly a term used for group sex of more than three. So how you come to the erroneous conclusion that this wasn’t ā€œvalidly consensualā€ doesn’t seem tied to the actual facts and evidence. Or her own statements for that matter.

upvote -5 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #3 7h

CONSENT CAN ALWAYS BE REVOKED AND ONLY WHEN YOU ARE CHECKED IN ON. SHUT THE FUCK UP. RAPE IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE. YOU SOUND LIKE A RAPIST.

upvote -1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #3 7h

Do you force girls to continue to have sex when they don’t want to bc they said yes ONCE? IT NEEDS TO BE CONTINUOUS! Don’t ever fuck ever again holy shit

upvote 7 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #5 7h

You can’t revoke consent retroactively though and lie simply because your reputation was ruined for being a whore and you were uninvited to the fraternity’s Halloween party.

upvote -1 downvote
default user profile icon
Anonymous replying to -> #5 7h

By all accounts and testament consent was given continuously at every step and her wishes were respected. Which is exactly what SHE said and reaffirmed repeatedly after the gangbang. But let’s ignore her own words when it’s not convenient for her lying victim narrative. Or the conclusion by the DA that the sexual encounter was ā€œvoluntary, conscious and consensualā€.

upvote 0 downvote