Tag: freakshow

The hoaxette’s friends have come forward to explain that Rolling Stone did not cover their story accurately:

The college students described as friends of the alleged rape victim Jackie in an explosive Rolling Stone article revealed their identities to ABC News today, and said that some of the magazine’s story is false.

“The text was so divergent from what we said that evening,” said Alex Stock, who said he’s identified as “Andy” in the article.

The magazine article describes a violent, three-hour gang rape that left a University of Virginia student identified as Jackie bruised and bloody when she escaped a house on fraternity row, right near the university president’s office.

When her friends, identified by Rolling Stone as “Randall,” “Andy” and “Cindy,” arrived that night, the article says they urged Jackie to keep quiet to keep their social lives intact.

That is not the scene described by Jackie’s friends to ABC News. They said at the time they believed a “traumatic” sex assault had occurred. But the two males friends said they were told that night — Sept. 28, 2012 — that Jackie was forced to perform oral sex on five men while a sixth stood by.

But their story is just the tip of the iceberg; it’s becoming apparent that they don’t believe her anymore either. Mostly because she appears to have been MAKING UP the very fraternity guy she was pretending to be seeing the night of the “rape”. One of Dalrock’s commenters summarizes the apparent sequence of events:

1) Jackie falls in crush with Randall.
2) Randall LJBFs Jackie
3) Jackie doesn’t understand that “no means no”
4) Jackie invents an imaginary boyfriend “chem guy” , complete with fake photos and phone number
5) Jackie boasts with chem guy in front of Randall to make him jealous. She even gives “chem guy’s phone number” to Randall, Andy and Cindy and, impersonating chem guy, insinuates to Randall that she loves him.
6) Randall remains unimpressed.
7) Jackie goes to date with chem guy.
8) Few hours later Jackie gives Randall a “damsel in distress” call.
9) Randall arrives and she hysterically tells him that chem guy lured her into a gang rape of clinton-levinsky variety.
10) Instead of falling in love with her, Randall calls reinforcements: Andy and Cindy.
11) They try to console her and convince her to go to police, but she refuses.
12) After that night chem guy still sends texts to Randall singing praise to Jackie.
13) Randall still doesn’t want to fall in love with Jackie.
14) Jackie is heartbroken and gets depressed.
15) Jackie finds out campus anti-rape activists and activities. Here she get attention, she didn’t get from Randall.
16) In next two years Jackie gets obsessed with anti-rape activism. Her story of that night gets newer and newer juicy details.
17) Two years later, Rolling Stone femipropagandist Sabrina Rubin Ederly is combing campuses nationwide to find THE perfect person for “campus rape culture awareness poster girl”.

In other words, the Rolling Stone article was based on a gang rape that didn’t happen at a fraternity party that never took place, orchestrated by a college student who doesn’t exist.

Forget rape. This story is grounds for never believing a single word that comes out of a college girl’s mouth.

All right, granted, it’s Volokh and not some scion of the Post’s left-wing elite, but it’s still remarkable to see an institution of the liberal Left finally turn on the self-admitted child molester, Lena Dunham, due to her publisher belatedly admitting that her parts of her “memoir” are fictitious:

Appalling. The book wasn’t a novel; it was a memoir, offered to readers as such. The copyright page, which I suspect few people read, does say that “Some names and identifying details have been changed,” but it certainly doesn’t tell people which ones.

Indeed, early in the book, when she mentions a boyfriend of hers and labels him Jonah, she adds a footnote: “Name changed to protect the truly innocent.” Reasonable readers, it seems to me, reading the rest of the memoir, would assume that “Barry” — whose name wasn’t accompanied with any such footnote — was actually named Barry. Even if not all readers would so conclude, many would, and quite understandably so.

How could Dunham and Random House do this? How could an author and a publisher — again, of a self-described memoir, not a work of fiction — describe a supposed rape by a person, give a (relatively rare) first name and enough identifying details that readers could easily track the person down, and not even mention that “Barry” wasn’t this person’s real name?

Say even that Dunham had forgotten that there really was a prominent Oberlin conservative named Barry back then. Surely it was obviously possible that, if one makes up a first name, someone real, who matches the other easily Google-findable characteristics, might have that name. Given the gravity of the charge, how can one possibly rely on a statement on the copyright page as the only hint that this particular item in the memoir is inaccurate?

The most amusing part is the addendum: “Folks, I think Lena Dunham acted badly here — but some commenters’ view
that she’s ugly or too fat or what have you seems to me to have little
to do with the merits of the matter.”

Actually, it has almost everything to do with them. Let’s face it, if the Dunham Horror wasn’t a creature being aggressively pushed on America by the media because she is fat, ugly, Jewish, and of the ideological Left, no one would have paid any attention to her rape fantasies in the first place. She is what a small, but influential group within the media wanted Americans to take for “the voice of her generation”.

And America collectively said: “yeah, not so much.”