I have been reading about the student rape business at Columbia University in New York. It appears that feminist activist student, Emma, accused another student, Paul, of raping her anally. It appears that they met and became just friendly in their first year. Emma had a boyfriend, but the Emma/Paul relationship eventually became sexual. When Paul’s ardour cooled, Emma reported him the the University for the alleged rape. A University investigation cleared Paul. Thereafter, Emma started a campaign against him, continuing to accuse him.

There was a strange twist to this story. She and her professor agreed that, if she carried the mattress upon which she alleged that the rape had occurred, around the campus, even carrying it to classes and events, it would be superb ‘performance art’. She would receive ‘credits’ for this outstanding piece of ‘performance art’. So for the next two years, she lugged this mattress about all over the place, all the time loudly accusing Paul of raping her anally.

In April this year (2015), Paul sued Columbia University for failure to stop this ‘gender harassment’, which caused him to suffer a lot.

In the above few sentences, I have abbreviated 54 pages of submission to the court, which I read through. It is worth reading because, in some parts, it reads like a porn story. Most of it is legalistic stuff. Most of the ‘fun’ is in the first few pages:

Paul ‘alleges’ that Emma was more than ‘up for it’ (meaning sexual activity of all kinds). In the suit, he quotes Facebook conversations between himself and Emma. Here is a taste (suitably edited to save older persons’ blushes):

First, an early conversation about Emma’s boyfriend (who is called ‘John Doe’ for privacy reasons):

12. Paul was also active in many social events, and he had a lot of friends. One of those friends was Emma Sulkowicz (“Emma”).
Emma’s Intimate Conversations with Paul
13. Paul’s relationship with Emma began platonically. They were just friends.
14. On December 16, 2011, Emma sent private Facebook messenger messages friend to Paul, asking him to speak with Emma’s sexual partner, John Doe, on her behalf, to urge John Doe to use condoms when he had sex with women other than Emma The conversation, in relevant part, is as follows:

Emma: John Doe and i are all cool – hahahah – i was excited.
Paul: oh thanks god good to hear – so wats da nuse.
Emma: he and i went to an art opening and tacos tonight – and we talked it out – like im not gonna force him to be exclusive but i was like “just use condoms with other girls” – so yeah – he’ll use condoms if he fucks other girls.
Paul: . . . its just i mean im glad you talked it out and stuff and im not the one trying to kill the boner here but how are you gonna have any idea whether he actually uses a condom with other girls or not.
Emma: yeah i realize that’s true – i mean there’s a lot of faith involved i feel like he needs another boy to tell him to use condoms can you, in like your next bro talk, just be like yo, use condoms when you luck other girls.
Paul: i have tried to talk to him – thats why i talked to you in the first place cause i felt i wasn’t gettin anywhere.
Emma: oh forrealz? – goddamnit – yeah he’s totally not gonna do it then.
Paul: :S
Emma: why can’t he just only love me.
Paul: [411 man i feel kinda bad as f-* * * puttin you through this.. its just i really dunno wat 2do. hu?
Emma: hu2 no you should feel proud of being a good guy.
Paul: naah not so sure meh.
Emma: no seriously, i’m thankful.
Paul: but yeah i guess, its just im kincla overwhelmed, thought John Doe was a good guy just acting tough you know.
Emma: yr saying that you thought he was a good guy but now you’re seeing lie’s a straight up had guy?
Paul: not straight up bad but like why is he doing this? like maybe at the end of the clay its none of my fuekin business, but then again i feel like it is.
Emma: I don’t knowwwww do you think lie’s going to be hooking up with more girls or is it a one time thing that he’s gotten over????
Paul: i have no clue, like really.

We learn  from that that Emma is sexually active and, in true ‘liberated feminista’ mode, is prepared to adopt ‘free love’ practices (though edging her bets).

The conversations become even more intimate:

15. Emma and Paul began having frequent intimate talks about very personal things.
During one of those conversations, she told Paul that she had been raped while in high school. Paul was distraught to hear this and offered her assistance in seeking support for Emma.
16. While they were still freshmen and before any physical relationship had begun, Emma broached the topic of anal sex with Paul by private 1’acehook messenger as follows:
Emma: f*ck me in the b*tt.

Paul: eehm. maybe not? jk. I miss your face tho.

Emma: hahahah. you don’t miss my lopsided ass?

[5]  Paul: ido. just not that much. good I am actually too tired to choose a movie.
“god also to tired to spell apparently.

Those snippets came from only the first six pages. There is more about their Facebook conversations.

What I find curious is that Paul did not sue, complain or take other steps, to stop the harassment earlier. On the other hand, I would not like to have been in his position. It seems that Emma was continuously increasing the pressure with a view to getting Paul out of Columbia University. I can only imagine that he was advised to ‘stay cool’ since the time for graduation was approaching. It is interesting that he has submitted this action in April 2015 as I believe that graduation was this month, May 2015. So, he has sued while still officially a student.

The one thing that bothers me is the history of Facebook conversations. Is it possible to fake backdated conversations on Facebook? I wouldn’t have thought so. Is it possible to go back and amend previous conversations? Again, I would have thought not.


The story is interesting in itself, but what interested me was how ALLEGATIONS became concrete fact both in Emma’s mind and behaviour, and have been promulgated as concrete fact for the last two years by a process of propaganda exaggeration. She cleverly added ‘evidence’ in the form of the mattress, which she lugged around the campus.


Does this whole charade not remind you of something? Does it not remind you of tobacco control? Think about it.

Smoking has been ‘linked to’ lung cancer. Smoking is suggested to be causally linked to LC. Smoking causes LC. And yet, all these statements are just ALLEGATIONS. And, like Emma lugging her mattress about, the ALLEGATIONS become truth by virtue of repetition. Emma was not content to pursue her vendetta merely on the campus. She eventually made a complaint to the police but was rebuffed, as you would expect. Naturally, she became ‘a victim’ once more – and another layer of propaganda was added.

Paul’s case is that the University rules dictate that males and females must be treated equally, but that the University treated him unequally by failing to protect him from the harassment.

Do smokers have a similar case? I think so, but the zealotry has to be allowed to run its course, just as Paul had to wait until his graduation before acting. Note also that there is no point in him suing Emma -whether her whole story is a pack of lies or not, she is THE VICTIM. Further, whether her whole story is a pack of lies or not, she has carried the flag for female equality into the highest places. A Senator invited her to Obama’s inaugural address as his personal guest. She has a very bright future.

At least with Doll’s ‘Doctors Study’, there was a very strongly supported ALLEGATION that smoking causes LC, but allegation it remains. Suppose that you posit that smoking PLUS air pollution causes LC in some people but not all? Suppose that you posit that smoking PLUS genetic propensity causes LC in some people, but not all? Suppose that you posit that smoking PLUS alcohol causes LC. Suppose that you posit that smoking PLUS worry and anxiety causes LC. Suppose that you posit that air pollution, genetic propensity, alcohol, stress and other things PLUS smoking causes LC among SOME people, but not all?

I really must look up those LC mortality figures again. The trouble is that it takes quite a long time. To make any sense, it would be necessary to know how much progress has been made in treating LC sufficiently to reduce mortality, or delay mortality. I know from some bloggers who have been diagnosed and are being treated for LC that treatment is possible and that the effects can be mitigated. I read somewhere that oncologists don’t like using the word CURE when it comes to treating cancer, although I suppose that some cancers can be, literally, cut out and removed completely. In fact, that happened to me. I had a small lump close to my left eyebrow which was getting bigger and bigger, but only a little at a time. The doctor sent me to the infirmary to have it checked out, although he thought it was probably nothing. In the event, it turned out to be a malignant form of cancer, but very slow growing. It was successfully cut out. I was thankful for that, but I did make a start on ‘putting my affairs in order’. Of course, the really, really interesting question is: “WHY DID CELLS IN THAT PARTICULAR SPOT ON MY BODY BECOME MALIGNANT?” I mean, we really, really are talking about ‘a spot’ – a tiny bit of skin just alongside my eyebrow. Why did that happen? What we can be sure of is that ignorance abounds, and a lot of medical ‘science’ is witchcraft in disguise. The difference these days is that the witchcraft is disguised by the use of complex phrases and jargon.

Is it not weird that a massive, unproductive, costly INDUSTRY has been built up on miasmas? The key word there is UNPRODUCTIVE. In fact, the correct word is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE. The tobacco control industry is not only costly in itself, but it also destroys other productive industries. Whether one likes it or not, the growing of tobacco plants is no different from the growing of coffee plants. You see, there really is no justification, in public health terms, for the production of coffee. Water alone is all that the human body needs to survive, along with some basic foods. But coffee is nice and humans like it, even though it contains ‘mind-bending’ substances. The industry can only survive because humans have found ways not to have to spend all their time carrying pots of water from streams to home, bashing wet clothes of rocks to remove dirt and shit, and grubbing about in the soil for root vegetables or chasing/trapping rabbits or buffaloes. My point is that industries which work against coffee production are actually working to return us to carrying pots of water from the stream to home.

Our pleasures are important to us, and smoking is one of them. For a few people, certain combinations of factors render them ‘at risk’. Smoking is only one of the factors.


Well, I must to bed. This post is much longer than was originally intended.


%d bloggers like this: