Big C said:

---

I'm not going on IG. Don't mention the name, but different player than named on fb, or same one?

---

Same

He never should've told her what he thought of her, true or not.

FWIW, I haven't seen any names in her IG or FB posts

Addressing some points in the previous dozen or so posts:

It seems crystal clear that many of you are perfectly comfortable placing the majority, if not all, of the onus on the man.

Drunk: this trope is about as pernicious as it gets, IMO. Too 'drunk' to consent. Quite a convenient crutch that seems only permissible for the woman. What if the man is drunk too? He can't consent either then, right? Are they "raping" each other when they're both "too drunk". If there are double standards, can we drop this whole equality thing then? I've blacked out and not remembered anything from the night before. Does that mean I was incoherent in the actions I had the night before? It certainly doesn't. I just don't remember them.

This is why the 'blacked out' or 'too drunk to remember' defense for an accuser is suspect. If the complainant is 'too drunk' to remember, why is her testimony even credible? "Hey, dude raped me. Details? Nah, I was pretty drunk." How can somebody whose memory is already called into question by the complainant themselves, can legitimately allege such a serious crime against somebody else?

Hypothetical: I wake up in bed naked after a drunken stooper in a place I don't recognize, no memory of the night before, with a woman I don't recognize at the foot of the bed performing sexual acts on me. I can respond in two ways. One, I can go to the police and claim I was sexually assaulted. I didn't recall giving her consent. It's conceivable I was violated. Or, I can say to myself "well I may have been violated, but I don't remember anything so.... guess I just f'd up. Maybe I did acquiesce all her advances. Maybe she presumed that I'd enjoy waking up to a sexual act given the night before which I may have been an enthusiastic participant. I can't really justify claiming this person had any ill intentions based on the information at my disposal, and certainly not of a crime. I'll just be on my way".

Quote:

---

This falls to whether one believes the impairment of rational judgement allows for one to give consent. I'm of the mind that while you're in a state of impairment, you can't give consent outright. That includes being drunk, but also other states such as impaired psychological conditions.

---

Any state of impairment nullifies consent? Apply that logic to anything except in the context of protecting women in sexual encounters. Even in that context, to many of us, it's absurd.

"Enthusiastic consent": This seems patently ridiculous. If one person initiates sexual contact, and is not rebuffed (i.e. acquiesced, not physically or verbally rejecting the continual sexual contact), that's consent, there's no other reasonable conclusion to reach. The assertion that one person needs to in some form or fashion meet the threshold of "enthusiastic consent", whatever the heck that even means, has no grounds in moral or legal reasoning. Consent is consent. Whatever perceived varying degrees of "enthusiasm" associated with that consent is irrelevant. Consent does not need a modifier. Just like "social justice" does not need a modifier. Justice is justice, by definition. There is no black, white, brown, or 'social' justice. There is no 'female' consent or 'male' consent, or ' 'satisfactory' consent and 'exceptional' consent.

The fact that people are so willing to afford privilege -- i.e. the lowering of standards and/or elimination of accountability to certain group identities marked by their immutable characteristics such as gender and race -- is what is dangerous. The willingness to put one's self on moral high ground for a "net positive" gain in the face of collateral damage is an intellectual and moral black hole. You could eliminate a lot of rights and freedoms for "net gain" but we don't do them.

By virtue of sexual assault allegations usually amounting to nothing more than two competing testimonies, it is inevitable that many or most that commit legitimate acts of sexual assault are not going to be charged and convicted. Our system is built on it being better to let 100 guilty go free than convict 1 innocent man. We are more or less on board with that principle -- except when it comes to, I'd argue, women and minorities.

The metoo movement knows fighting in the criminal courts is a tough threshold to meet. What's the next best option? Revenge -- to shame and extort men in public courts on the basis of allegations and muddled ideas regarding consent, and sexual accountability.

I don't entirely blame these women. I think they're misinformed. Mainstream culture has taught them they have carte de blanche in determining what consent is after-the-fact. Watch the documentaries of women telling them how the act went down. By their own account, a lot of them, are describing a submissive woman who couldn't clearly reject the advance.

Consent is not about having doubts or regrets, it's not about whether your experience was positive for you, it's not about being unsure and he didn't take the initiative to double check with you. You either rebuffed the advance or you did not. You either communicated consent or non consent in a manner in which your partner would understand.

GBear4Life said:

---

FWIW, I haven't seen any names in her IG or FB posts

Addressing some points in the previous dozen or so posts:

It seems crystal clear that many of you are perfectly comfortable placing the majority, if not all, of the onus on the man.

Drunk: this trope is about as pernicious as it gets, IMO. Too 'drunk' to consent. Quite a convenient crutch that seems only permissible for the woman. What if the man is drunk too? He can't consent either then, right? Are they "raping" each other when they're both "too drunk". If there are double standards, can we drop this whole equality thing then? I've blacked out and not remembered anything from the night before. Does that mean I was incoherent in the actions I had the night before? It certainly doesn't. I just don't remember them.

This is why the 'blacked out' or 'too drunk to remember' defense for an accuser is suspect. If the complainant is 'too drunk' to remember, why is her testimony even credible? "Hey, dude raped me. Details? Nah, I was pretty drunk." How can somebody whose memory is already called into question by the complainant themselves, can legitimately allege such a serious crime against somebody else?

Hypothetical: I wake up in bed naked after a drunken stooper in a place I don't recognize, no memory of the night before, with a woman I don't recognize at the foot of the bed performing sexual acts on me. I can respond in two ways. One, I can go to the police and claim I was sexually assaulted. I didn't recall giving her consent. It's conceivable I was violated. Or, I can say to myself "well I may have been violated, but I don't remember anything so.... guess I just f'd up. Maybe I did acquiesce all her advances. Maybe she presumed that I'd enjoy waking up to a sexual act given the night before which I may have been an enthusiastic participant. I can't really justify claiming this person had any ill intentions based on the information at my disposal, and certainly not of a crime. I'll just be on my way".

Quote:

---

This falls to whether one believes the impairment of rational judgement allows for one to give consent. I'm of the mind that while you're in a state of impairment, you can't give consent outright. That includes being drunk, but also other states such as impaired psychological conditions.

---

Any state of impairment nullifies consent? Apply that logic to anything except in the context of protecting women in sexual encounters. Even in that context, to many of us, it's absurd.

"Enthusiastic consent": This seems patently ridiculous. If one person initiates sexual contact, and is not rebuffed (i.e. acquiesced, not physically or verbally rejecting the continual sexual contact), that's consent, there's no other reasonable conclusion to reach. The assertion that one person needs to in some form or fashion meet the threshold of "enthusiastic consent", whatever the heck that even means, has no grounds in moral or legal reasoning. Consent is consent. Whatever perceived varying degrees of "enthusiasm" associated with that consent is irrelevant. Consent does not need a modifier. Just like "social justice" does not need a modifier. Justice is justice, by definition. There is no black, white, brown, or 'social' justice. There is no 'female' consent or 'male' consent, or ' 'satisfactory' consent and 'exceptional' consent.

The fact that people are so willing to afford privilege -- i.e. the lowering of standards and/or elimination of accountability to certain group identities marked by their immutable characteristics such as gender and race -- is what is dangerous. The willingness to put one's self on moral high ground for a "net positive" gain in the face of collateral damage is an intellectual and moral black hole. You could eliminate a lot of rights and freedoms for "net gain" but we don't do them.

By virtue of sexual assault allegations usually amounting to nothing more than two competing testimonies, it is inevitable that many or most that commit legitimate acts of sexual assault are not going to be charged and convicted. Our system is built on it being better to let 100 guilty go free than convict 1 innocent man. We are more or less on board with that principle -- except when it comes to, I'd argue, women and minorities.

The metoo movement knows fighting in the criminal courts is a tough threshold to meet. What's the next best option? Revenge -- to shame and extort men in public courts on the basis of allegations and muddled ideas regarding consent, and sexual accountability.

I don't entirely blame these women. I think they're misinformed. Mainstream culture has taught them they have carte de blanche in determining what consent is after-the-fact. Watch the documentaries of women telling them how the act went down. By their own account, a lot of them, are describing a submissive woman who couldn't clearly reject the advance.

Consent is not about having doubts or regrets, it's not about whether your experience was positive for you, it's not about being unsure and he didn't take the initiative to double check with you. You either rebuffed the advance or you did not. You either communicated consent or non consent in a manner in which your partner would understand.

---

Nice try and well reasoned. Unfortunately the verdict is "guilty as charged".

If the woman/other guy was alcohol impaired consent could not have been given. She/he might have been alcohol impaired but conscious enough to remember what happened.
If both of you were "out of it" how did the accused find himself being accused. Did some third person(s) provide the key testimony.
If so how does the accused provide a defense.
Unless of course the accused is a nominee for the USSC in which case all he has to say is "I like beer" and the FBI will ignore all third party testimony.

GBear4Life said:

---

The fact that people are so willing to afford privilege -- i.e. the lowering of standards and/or elimination of accountability to certain group identities marked by their immutable characteristics such as gender and race -- is what is dangerous. The willingness to put one's self on moral high ground for a "net positive" gain in the face of collateral damage is an intellectual and moral black hole. You could eliminate a lot of rights and freedoms for "net gain" but we don't do them.

---

You seem to be proceeding under the assumption that legal and/or criminal remedies are the end state here. I'm not sure that's the case. I haven't said anything about eliminating rights or freedoms. I don't advocate convicting people of crimes based on a single accusation, and I don't know that there is any serious movement to do so. I think you keep returning to this territory because it's where you feel safest. There are other kinds of moral arguments that can take place without getting into criminal territory.

Maybe this is more about changing widespread attitudes? For example, in that Vice documentary you posted (which I thought was actually quite good), the talk at the end wasn't about jailing the guy who just remembered a drunk hookup while the woman remembered a rape, it was just about wanting him to acknowledge having hurt her (even if unintentionally) and apologize for it. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

(On a tangential note, I think a lot of thorny social issues could be better handled if we stopped thinking about everything in black-and-white law-and-order terms, on both the right and the left. Not everything has to be about whether or not someone should be prosecuted in court.)

Big C said:

---

I'm not going on IG. Don't mention the name, but different player than named on fb, or same one?

---

Same player as named in the initial post. I believe she's showing messages other people have sent her in solidarity calling out players and coaches. She also has an account from someone alleging that Wilcox has "a history of being a terrible guy towards women." and that there's a current coach close to Wilcox who's "a complete sexual predator."

So again, more strong accusations although these posts are just messages from others without any other information. Hard to believe the accusations towards Wilcox as I've heard literally nothing of the sort throughout his coaching career.

Again, we're going to have to wait and see because it's going to be this one-sided stream of information for a while it looks like.

I admit I don't exactly find this to make any sense

Quote:

---

If the woman/other guy was alcohol impaired consent could not have been given.

---

Anybody who is impaired "can't" give consent? What qualifies impairment? I'll make it easy, let's say drunk enough to where you can't drive and would fail a sobriety test. How is this not absurd on its face?

I highly doubt anybody on this board hasn't both had sex drunk and had sex with someone who was drunk. If that is the definition of consent, then we're all serial rapists, aren't we?

Quote:

---

She/he might have been alcohol impaired but conscious enough to remember what happened.

---

Again, this is according to testimony of an impaired person (and I thought impairment prohibits consent, period?). You're trying to decipher levels of impairment based on testimonies from impaired people. Again, it's a faulty crutch morally. You're presupposing the complainant was 'more' impaired than the accused...

Quote:

---

If both of you were "out of it" how did the accused find himself being accused. Did some third person(s) provide the key testimony. If so how does the accused provide a defense.

---

Again, I don't follow you here. You'll have to help me on this one

Quote:

---

Maybe this is more about changing widespread attitudes? For example, in that Vice documentary you posted (which I thought was actually quite good), the talk at the end wasn't about jailing the guy who just remembered a drunk hookup while the woman remembered a rape, it was just about wanting him to acknowledge having hurt her (even if unintentionally) and apologize for it. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

---

Again, how condescending can our 'enlightened and cosmopolitan' view of women become? It's also strikingly naive and biased. Are women strong and capable of standing up for themselves in real time as men are expected to do regarding their bodies or are they not? In the time that the civil rights movement has made such tremendous strides, we are turning back time where we treated minorities and women like children -- the difference being that now the educated liberals wants to reward them for playing that role.

I remember that part, it was pretty touching, but also incredible frustrating. She accepts that he never intended to hurt her, but just needed acknowledgement that she felt differently. How assertive do you think her supposed 'no' was? If a well intentioned (and impaired) man, who was not forcing her down against her will genuinely perceived consent, why in the world isn't she looking within herself? If I order a burger and fries, and I only get the burger which reflects the receipt, I don't assume he intentionally screwed up my order. I assume I wasn't clear when I ordered. Or he didn't hear me. If she was decisively against the act, why did she let it continue, and how did he not know? That is the carte de blanche we have given women in sexual scenarios.

In addition, that instance is not what is concerning to people. Many Women don't just want 'acknowledgement', the whole problem is they are seeking reparations in some form or another based on an allegation, many of them ridiculous on its face. There are women who will seek damages in this very instance, that it will destroy a possibly innocent man's life based on a misguided notion of consent and sexual responsibility and culpability is an afterthought.

These women are alleging crimes that presupposes the man knew it was wrong. Otherwise, why would we lament the accused? It's nothing more than a miscommunication then.

This isn't just a legal liability, it is a moral liability. It's immoral to defer and transfer responsibility of one's own physical body in sexual contact to another party, and then claim that party was at best negligent and at worst a monster.

"It is wrong and irresponsible to conflate claims of impolitic behavior or consensual sexual contact later regretted with an untrue claim of criminal conduct"

Quote:

---

You seem to be proceeding under the assumption that legal and/or criminal remedies are the end state here. I'm not sure that's the case. I haven't said anything about eliminating rights or freedoms. I don't advocate convicting people of crimes based on a single accusation, and I don't know that there is any serious movement to do so. I think you keep returning to this territory because it's where you feel safest. There are other kinds of moral arguments that can take place without getting into criminal territory.

---

Then why is the narrative so one-sided? It's an ideologically driven social and political project that ascribes weak victim status to specific groups, and therefore grants them privilege which, in these cases, are at the expense of others who aren't in those bestowed groups.

They are MIA on the criminally insane 2011 direction "which issued a sweeping reinterpretation of Title IX, a federal law prohibiting gender discrimination. The letter urged universities to investigate sexual assaults and conduct hearings assessed on a lower standard of proof, requiring just a "preponderance of the evidence", or 51% certainty of guilt. Universities were discouraged from using a tougher "clear and convincing" standard because this was judged to be "not equitable".

What is the "widespread attitude" you're trying to change? And how are these social movements, which I find to be fundamentally detestable and contrary to the values and principles that we all share, helping change this attitude? It's a genuine question, because I've asked that question to myself and others, and I don't think passable answers exist. What cultural attitude do we need to combat? There is no rape and sexual assault culture. It is illegal. Allegations are investigated, no matter how ridiculous they initially seem. No serious person condones violating other people physically. What I see is a illogical, immoral, and biased social and political project aimed at correcting for history, conferring privilege to a historically marginalized group behind the shield of a claim to having the moral high ground. It sounds good...we're protecting women!!! How can you be against that unless you are sexist right!?!

I'm not questioning intentions. I presume most people actually are trying to solve a problem the best they know how. But well intentioned people can be stupid and ignorant, particularly when their orthodoxy places themselves on high moral ground based on fundamentally flawed ideas that amount to sexism and racism, exactly the traits they are trying to destroy.

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

Big C said:

---

I'm not going on IG. Don't mention the name, but different player than named on fb, or same one?

---

Same player as named in the initial post. I believe she's showing messages other people have sent her in solidarity calling out players and coaches. he also has an account from someone alleging that Wilcox has "a history of being a terrible guy towards women." and that there's a current coach close to Wilcox who's "a complete sexual predator."

So again, more strong accusations although these posts are just messages from others without any other information. Hard to believe the accusations towards Wilcox as I've heard literally nothing of the sort throughout his coaching career.

Again, we're going to have to wait and see because it's going to be this one-sided stream of information for a while it looks like.

---

What totally sucks is that the University investigation is going to drag on and on and on (they might not have even started yet... too busy on that investigation on the Asst Prof in the Italian Dept.), meanwhile the young woman keeps throwing stuff out on social media. Bad PR. Wanna just get to the truth, whatever that may be, and take action on whatever that is.

StillNoStanfurdium said:

---

Big C said:

---

I'm not going on IG. Don't mention the name, but different player than named on fb, or same one?

---

Same player as named in the initial post. I believe she's showing messages other people have sent her in solidarity calling out players and coaches. he also has an account from someone alleging that Wilcox has "a history of being a terrible guy towards women." and that there's a current coach close to Wilcox who's "a complete sexual predator."

So again, more strong accusations although these posts are just messages from others without any other information. Hard to believe the accusations towards Wilcox as I've heard literally nothing of the sort throughout his coaching career.

Again, we're going to have to wait and see because it's going to be this one-sided stream of information for a while it looks like.

---

The IG story is weird. All the screenshots are one sided. At no point does she type anything back. Also since she blocked out the pic/screen name on two of them you don't know if it's the same person or multiple people. Plus one of the screenshots is talking about something from 4 years ago, so I am not sure what that's even about.

Not sure why only one player is being named, because honestly it's not against the law for people to slide into DMs. It's easy not to have people sliding into your DMs, make your account private.
Whole thing is weird

It's not that weird.

After a cursory glance at her IG, does she seem like a centered, rational person? She's apparently traumatized but posting pics flaunting material and geographical affluence and privilege, joking about the poor. This isn't someone who feels victimized sexually. She feels victimized because her entitlement (professional promotion) was not granted. She says herself, she felt entitled to that promotion due to her "hard work". The world doesn't work that way. She wreaks of self-entitlement. The self-entitled lash out when they don't get what they think is theirs.

I certainly don't know whether harassment took place, I just think she's never felt victimized by it. It only became a problem and trauma worth sharing when she didn't get what she wanted, which of course is manipulation, by definition.

TheFiatLux said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

TheFiatLux said:

---

BearGreg said:

---

pingpong2 said:

---

Why did the thread with the texts get taken down?

---

Because no one can 100% verify they are from and to her.

---

This is ridiculous. People have been making assertions throughout for the past week that can't be 100% verified, in fact the Facebook post in the OP is one great big unverified assertion. These assertions usually are flat out wrong, and you let them stay. I also know the origins of those texts, including at least one person she referenced in them who extemporaneous to her sending those texts was telling us how much trouble she was so to stay far away. This person's credentials are beyong reproach.

For those who didn't see them, there were strong and credible - hey we have heard that before - documents and evidence that demonstrated much of what the perpetraitor (as far as I am concerned she was never a victim and certainly isn't now) claimed were flat out lies. Demonstrable, prima facie lies. This isn't a bipolar issue or PTSD issue, This is someone who is morally bankrupt. I'm tired of people like this getting free passes to destroy other people's reputations and we're all supposed to politely say "gosh, I hope she gets help with her problems." BS, I hope she has to pay restitution. I also would like to see all the people who jumped to conclusions (despite so many recent examples of where it would be far wiser to withhold judgement,) own their actions.

---

Fiat

I'm going to ask you to consider the following:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/opinions/arlington-texas/?utm_term=.5c514e91f340

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/what-happened-to-amber-wyatt-rape/

Quick summary. Amber was brutally raped after a party. Upon reporting it, her friends turn on her. Responsible parents turn on her. Then the community. Everyone knew she was lying despite physical evidence to the contrary. She was morally bankrupt. The community took to chalk painting the word FAITH on their cars. It stood for "Eff Amber in Three Holes". Even as an atheist, I'm outraged at a community using a religious word as a weapon like that. But she deserved it. And if you were part of that community, people whose credentials you believed were beyond reproach would have told you so.

Now, members of that community are sending notes of regret. One said: "Amber, I'm not sure why I pretended to know what happened"

This isn't Amber's case. But why do this? Why risk being wrong about this and being part of a pile on? It isn't necessary. (a point I also would make to anyone who thinks ill of the accused at this date)

I see exceedingly few posts claiming the accusations are true. I see only posts saying wait and see. Why the need to make this argument now?

If any people think they are helping Cal with amateur sleuthing and pouring through her social media, they aren't. No one outside Cal will care about any point made here. They will only care if actual evidence from an actual investigation clears this up. The only thing that others might see out of these arguments, rightly or wrongly, is a fan community attacking a potential victim about the clothes she wears, about her vacations, trying to paint her in a certain light based on selections of posts and mysterious "those who know" statements. It will not be presented in a positive light for Cal. It will be presented as yet another lunkhead sports community protecting their team at all costs. Cal has well paid people that speak for them (or choose not to). We may like or dislike how they do their jobs, but one thing is for certain, they do it better than a mass of internet posters thinking they can turn the tide. Cal needs to act and speak with one voice.

I recently had intimate knowledge of a case. I can't tell you specifics for confidentiality reasons. But what I can say is that the case occurred when not one or two but many made allegations of certain actions. On its face it was a slam dunk. Many witnesses saying the same thing. An investigation was done and it all fell apart. No one actually saw anything. "I heard it from A", A says they never said that and in fact they never witnessed it. A myriad of facts like that uncovered by a professional investigation. Ultimately it was actually proven the allegations were untrue. Just a whole lot of gossip feeding on itself. The investigators know what they are doing. They are very good at this stuff. Let them work.

What I ask of everyone is to realize that between alleged victim and accused at least one side, maybe all sides, are going through a terrible time that they don't deserve. Don't be the guy that dumped on somebody, whether alleged victim or accused, at the worst time by piling on where it isn't your place and then find out you were wrong . I know that isn't a regret I wish to bear.

---

Great, so let's not talk about it all, since if you (and others) are saying, no one has information, then there's nothing to contribute, other than confusion. I in fact suggested that early up, that given the well documented situations with Jussie Smollett and Nathan Philips, we should all withhold judgement.

But we have others, as represented by Another Bear, who go all in:

Quote:

---

Cal AD and the whole school needs to hire a team to cut this crap out at the start. Education and training for all staffers, no exception. Clear and specific examples of bad behavior and harassment. Signed letter that you took the training and updated training, and put in your employment contract. Why? This isn't the first time this has happened and the past few were high level, deans, etc.

---

They see the Facebook post and buy into.

Then we have folks when presented with information from current students like oskioski (full disclosure, friend of mine and often stays with me) such as the instagram shot he posted, those people immediately attack him. LIke when Fyght posted this

Quote:

---

P.T. Barnum was right. Every darn minute.

---

Anyway oskiosksi had legit information. Was sitting next to me on the couch, passed me his computer and asked me if he should post it, I said sure. The mods took it down. Having been a party to blatantly false claims myself, for which I suffered but the person making the claims didn't (and in fact was treated with kid gloves) I definitely have a bias. but I've seen enough of it societally to know I wasn't a lone example. But Oaktown, I'll stop.

---

I regret that my original response to you disappeared in the ether. I can't and won't reconstruct it. I'll just say this, as a father of a daughter, I'm very sensitive to misogynist responses to alleged sexual misconduct. Especially from grown men on anonymous blog sites. Posting dubious info without provenance, explanation or qualification just to rip a possibly traumatized young woman will never sit well with me. I'll call it out everyday and twice on Sunday's.

I love Cal football. But not quite unconditionally. If there is something wrong, I want it corrected. Going on a savage attack against a Cassandra before the facts are in does no one any good.

Finally, I'm not sure why my post struck such a deep and abiding nerve with you. These days of disinformation and "fake news" prove that suckers are indeed born every minute, and all of us are capable of being played. If the person who posted the screenshot has a problem with my post, he or she is free to reach out to me, publicly or privately. I highly doubt that they are so pathetic or incapable that they need you to continue caping for them.