Man Falsely Accused Of Rape: "Thank God I Filmed It"

lots already on DU about this case. Glad the innocent have been vindicated. but this quote...wow


The man who was accused of being involved in a gang rape of a Hofstra University student, only for the student to recant her claim and admit the sex was consensual because there was a video of the encounter, is on the cover of the Post today. While Arvin Rivera, an 18-year-old senior at Harry S. Truman HS in The Bronx, was not arrested, he tells the paper, "I was so afraid. Words cannot even begin to describe how I was feeling inside. Thank God I was there. And thank God I filmed it."

http://gothamist.com/2009/09/19/man_falsely_accused_of_rape_thank_g.php

for the girl and for the boys to think any of this was OK is just wrong.

And sorry if I don't think that the boys are totally 'innocent' - even if the girl consented, it's just not right.

pardon me if I have a different opinion

.... what they did was "wrong" to the point of being pathological and possibly criminal regardless of the female's role. While quaint, that's the kind of thinking which has ruined the lives of many young men falsely accused of rape.

But don't you DARE think it's ok to stick your nose in someone else's crotch. opinionated claptrap like that is practically no better than the rapist and false accusers themselves.

of consenting adults.

Just who in the hell do you think you are?

you are entitled to yours, too. If you think this behavior is acceptable, fine.

NONE. OF. YOUR. BUSINESS. PERIOD.

hugh

At first I was going to delete the double post - but in your case - it deserves REPEATING!!!

you might notice that nowhere do I say that only the boys are in the wrong here.

But your outrage at my opinion is noted. And I don't give a shit what you think about it.

And sorry if I don't think that the boys are totally 'innocent' - even if the girl consented, it's just not right.

How does that not equal, for all practical purposes, the boys being wrong?

SHE WAS CAUGHT IN HER FUCKING LIE THAT WOULD HAVE RUINED AN INNOCENT - INNOCENT - BOY!!!

All because she didn't want to explain to her boyfriend that she got drunk and cheated on him.

Fucking a drunk girl they didn't know...

Oh, such poor kids.

I can't imagine why a girl would feel as if she was raped after four guys fucked her while she was drunk. Granted, her actions were stupid and I don't advocate jail time for consensual sex, no matter how much regret there may be afterwards. However, if she was drunk, and they knew it, that alone should have kept them off of her. A person can't give informed consent in an intoxicated state.

This girl sounds deeply troubled. And, she is just a kid. A very young girl who got herself into a horrible situation. This type of thing can get out of control pretty quickly.

It's not going to make a difference and it's not supported by what is known about the case. The woman's story wasn't that she was too drunk to consent, or that she passed out and was taken advantage of. From what was reported, her story was that she was bound with a rope and forcibly raped.

it. never. happened.

She's responsible for her own actions whether she was drunk or sober. I can't get drunk, get in a car accident, and plead that it's not my fault because I got drunk. If you're worried about alcohol influencing your behavior, don't get drunk. It's that simple. It's not like this girl was passed out and they jumped her. If you read the firsthand accounts, SHE was the one who proposed that the boy she was flirting with bring his friends, and that it would be "hot." Her idea.

each other. And they were all kids. As a girl, my mother treated me with kid gloves but not my brother and I hated and resented it.
It happens all the time.
My husband plays in band...we have both seen crazy, drunk people do really weird crazy things and not remember it the next day. Both females and males. Hence the rule I always used: if you don't want regrets the next day, don't be stupid and get drunk and or high enough to not be aware of what is happening. Because this is when stuff happens that you didn't want to happen.

That doesn't mean that it's a good idea or that it doesn't have horrible, life-changing consequences.

:rofl:


Yeah, obviously sex has consequences. Responsibility is necessary. I have no problem with a 5-man gangbang if everybody used protection.

:applause:

Sid

nice

The fact that she did not recant the story until she found out there was video tape pretty much means she did not know it was being taped.

There are no heroes here.

I'm not saying that there are heroes here, so I don't know what your point is. The guy who video taped the thing isn't a hero except perhaps to himself, his family, his friends and their families. He saved their lives.

I still don't see why men would want to share their fluids.

:puke:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And have already been given it a few times, I see.

*rimshot*

It isn't your place or anybody else's to dictate what people do with their sex lives. The boys ARE innocent. You may not approve, but to continue to malign them when they are the victims here is short sighted and ignorant.

The girl on the other hand, well, she needs something. I'm just not sure if it's prison time or a good counselor.

go back to the Victorian Age.

nt

:sarcasm:

Beats the hell out of 10-25 years in prison.

Bigger problem I can see is guys using this as justification for hiding cameras to video any and all sex acts. If I was at an age and had the opportunity to participate in the casual hook-up scene of today I must admit it would be a thought that would enter my mind.

:toast:

yes. Yes indeed, it is a very good idea to try to get any and all of your sexual activities on film. It could mean the difference between living your life and living your life in prison for decades.

When you consider that angle, it's suddenly not such an outrageous idea.

DU burped and repeated me.

If the taping is not consensual, then there are privacy issues at play.

Not good advise.

If anyone had me on tape, I'd be suing to get it back and for restitution because you KNOW they're going to show it to their buddies. No free "Girls Gone Wild" using my body. Period.

Group sex should be more egalitarian.

Were the boys waiting in line, or were they having sex with each other? Isn't that how group sex work? That everybody's doing it?

Would 1 man having sex with 4 women be considered unfair to the guy?

Anytime there is an odd # of people is the sex not "egalitarian" enough for you?

and not knowing what they are doing in the first place. Anyone naive enough to think college kids don't have crazy sex is living under a rock.
And it seems this girl might not have been drunk..she just lied. So filming it saved them from jail, not that its a great and moral thing to do.

"Rivera's cousin Stalin Felipe"

Means "Man of Steel" after all.

thanking the Lord for assisting him by getting him to film having group sex.


I am sure that his original reason for filming it was not the result of holy intercession and that the reason he did it was not to form a legal defense.

How ironic that his filiming the event, which he no doubt intended to share with friends and possibly put on the internet, actually hurt the girls reputation more than if he had simply posted a girl having multliple sex in a bathroom.

FWIW, as we were reminded by R Crumb just recently, one of God's "just men" Lot was ready to throw his virgin daughters to a mob of horny men to prevent the men from trying to have sex with the two strangers visiting him...



The dealings of God are laden with irony...

I have a Gay cousin who has a friend who is a prominent Gay psychologist in Canada, and who has even worked as a consultant to the Canadian government on gay rights issues. He did some investigation into the story of Lot and the Sodom and Gomorrah thing, even consulted Christian theology experts. The real message is that in that time, same sex encounters were quite common and accepted, but what was not accepted was mistreating guests in ones home. The custom in those days was that if a traveler came through your city, you extended hospitality by bringing the traveler into your home and giving them a place to sleep, and feed them. It was the fact the the "Sodomites" (which is just a term for someone who lived in the city of Sodom), had broken the tradition of extending hospitality to strangers! Not the fact that they wanted to buttfuck them!
Lot telling them that he would rather they "know" his daughters was simply a message to them that he would rather do that than break the rules or traditions of the time. He surely didn't actually mean it, and it was the equivalent of us today saying, "I'd rather have you kill my dog than take my Chevy"or some such expression. The modern "Christians" have twisted the story around to make it say that gay sex is a crime under Gods watch. As a result, the angels went back to God and God put the shit down on the two cities as punishment, which we all know is used metaphorically in the story. So a "Sodomite" in real meaning is just somebody who is not hospitable to strangers, not a rapist or gay.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Parenthood ain't for sissies..... oh, wait! :)

but to thank God for saving your ass - is weird.


As I said it is Karmic blow back to the girl that she would be revealed to not only to be sexually permiscuous but also crazy enough to initiate a false report to the police.

I don't care how mixed up she is she should be prosecuted for making a false police report.


My remark was simply aimed at the very odd "Thank God" that has become so ubiquitous that God is now responsible for scoring all of our touchdowns, helping adolescents get into college, picking the winner of American Idol and in His spare time helping guys remember to tape their group sex. That is one busy Deity!!

when things go right, and we get all of the blame when things go wrong.

attempting to steal the lives and freedom of five innocent people did that.

invitation to the men to engage in group sex. One of the young men was disinclined and she cajoled and teased him until he agreed. When the prosecutors saw that section of video, they confronted the accuser with it.

I imagine that were I compelled to film myself and my partner for either a consequential defense, or simply to get my own kicks means that I either don't trust her, or have my own problems and hang-ups... both more than good enough reasons to walk away from the scenario.

Most days, I'm more than happy to be what a hedonist may perceive as a prude... :P

It doesn't sound like the men knew this girl well.
Sure as hell would be a good move for them to walk away from her instead of having group sex, but that is neither here nor there. By the way at least one of the five denies having sex with her.

I rarely trust anyone I've just met-- the implicit meaning being that any romantic liaisons I may engage in are with individuals already I know rather well...

It doesn't sound like they knew the girl well or at all.

At their age, I doubt they were thinking very much. I imagine long- or even short-term consequences don't interpret very well when the contemporary male teen is presented with the opportunity to... do what they did.

I can't pretend to know what was going through their minds. Dumb. Very, very very dumb.

As long as all parties act responsibly, I see nothing to complain about.

Note I was specifically referring to myself. For me it's wrong, and I am well within my moral limits to place those heavy orisons on my own person.

However you and yours may get your kicks in any way you deem necessary without my judgment, my condemnation, my approval, or my notice...

Some people generalize their moral conclusions to apply to others. Glad you don't.

I'm glad the truth came out, but wtf were they thinking?

would never even think of, isn't it? That's a sort of fear that's pretty much exclusive to heteros, I'm guessing.

the case!!!

Advice to men everywhere: Tape ALL your encounters!!!

Or (and I find this both more accessible and easier) simply engage in a romantic liaison only with those individuals you already know and trust.

human beings are just things to be used and thrown aside...as long as they consent to being used and thrown aside, it's all good, or didn't you get the memo? Love is outdated. It doesn't resemble pornos and nobody profits from it, plus, CARING about others is sooo last century!

had the liar not been busted in her big fat criminal lie.

n/t

The woman does have a right to turn that down.

And, if you do it in private without her consent, you'll get sued. I'd sue your ass.

Just look at the attitudes of a lot of DUers. To them, the idea that a woman might want to have sex with multiple partners is inconceivable. Some are even equating it to rape even though all the participants are on record saying they willingly did it.

Without that tape, he and all the other guys' lives would have been ruined.

The woman was not aware of the videotape, since the presence of it caused her to retract her story. So the boys here clearly videotaped her having sex without her consent.

Granted this doesn't rise to the level of filing a false rape charge in the grand scheme of things. But I'm sure they weren't planning on keeping that video to themselves. I'd even be willing to bet that they had already showed it off to others before they were arrested.

I remember the late 1960s and 1970s. It was the Golden Age of Promiscuity. We met people at parties or bars or anywhere, had sex with them, and maybe knew little more about them than their first name.

When we hear about kids these days videotaping their sex acts, it sounds really bad to us, but that's because we didn't have it back then. We did have instant photos, though, and we took plenty of them.

Humans like to do the nasty, and they like to draw pictures of it, or take photos, or take videos. We're voyeuristic and exhibitionist animals. Our attitudes about it vary in life, but most of us go through an era when we're younger that our hormones do most of the driving.

or exhibitionist tendencies we have, they do NOT have to be channeled into our sex life.

There are two kinds of people when it comes to sex, those who allow their sex drive to dictate their behavior and those that use their sex drive as they will.

Glad to know you have your urges well under control.

That "two kinds of people when it comes to sex" thing may be the dumbest thing ever written on this topic, however. Why don't you try reading up on the topic, and learn how human beings are designed? There's a whole range of human behaviors, and your "either/or" paradigm is not among them.

Don't let anyone hold you back.

You have a future in writing.

:sarcasm:

But seriously. This trollop belongs in prison. Not only could she have hurt these innocent men, she made it harder for people to believe rape victims.

Taping without consent is wrong, but in this case, I am glad the guys had their evidence to exonerate them. Not only has she made it harder for people to believe rape victims, but I bet she has ensured many more liaisons will be taped without consent. She has probably hurt a lot of women she'll never know.

Be a consumerist pig, screw everyone you see, be vulgar and rude! You are stuck up if you don't act like an ass! :sarcasm:

I guess you and I didn't share the same social circles.

I entered art school in 1970 as an activist and lesbian and was around some incredibly creative and progressive folks. What you describe, however, does not reflect the experience of a vast majority of the people with whom I shared a marvelously creative part of my life. Just because I -- and the vast majority of the people I knew -- wasn't sleeping around with an endless stream of nameless folks and taking polaroids of my exploits doesn't mean I was living in a convent. Perhaps you were just painting an entire generation of folks with an awfully big brush with that "we".

That's a mighty royal "we" in your circle of friends. Whatever. :eyes:

I can't believe how many moralists we have on what is thought of as a "liberal" board. Not that people should not be wise in their sexual choices, but really, when did we go back to accusing consensual sexual behavior of being immoral?

I will agree with any who wish to argue that monogamy is an admirable goal, and showing restraint in matters of sex is a good idea.

But there's a larger issue, to which you speak. As I mentioned earlier, it is common for young people, full of hormones raging, to fall into sexual excess. I did it. Wouldn't do it again. But back then, it made sense, such as it was. It takes a person being a certain age, in a certain circumstance, with certain options. The rest is pretty much automatic.

I'm amused at the secret Carrie Nation Society we have here. They're always on the Puritan morality watch.

when did teaching teens to not act like fucking morons become considered "prudism"?

They're all over 18. They live in the big city and attend a major university, so they might be accustomed to a faster life style than you. They voluntarily engaged in group sex. It's not what I would do, and not what I would prefer for the young, but I recognize the elasticity in society, and that it has to reach a lot further than my personal tastes.

But there is something wrong with behaviors that reinforce misogynistic attitudes and notions that women are more objects to be fucked. That in no way means I think such behavior should be banned, I just think it's stupid and degrading.

Seriously, I never could remember names in the morning. But people would do things like go to work and leave a note asking you to lock the door and drop the key back through the slot. Stuff like that is beyond the imagination of some folks today.

Anyone who wasn't in on the sexual activity of those times can be presumed to have a hang up about sex.

... needs to question why they need that kind of validation.

:puke:

I would not want that for myself.

I never did any such sordid stuff

I'm sure you've never done a lot of fun things in your life.

Perhaps you'd have a more pleasant demeanor if you had been more socially active in your younger years.

The fact that you find such stuff "sordid" is a window into your cold heart.

I've had great fun (STILL DO) but I managed to never use someone with low self esteem to get my rocks off

Of course I believe you. Just like I believe that girl from Hofstra.



Sexually healthy people don't get their ass tied in a knot over the sex practices of other adults. They just don't. So when someone flips out totally over sex, we know they don't really have a healthy attitude about it, in spite of all their claims to the contrary.

You can surmise it all you wish, but that doesn't make it a fact. Your opinion on this matter is well documented all over this thread. Those disagreeing with you have opinions every bit as valid and your tossing out of "facts" about human nature doesn't change that.

And just let me say that, IMO: anybody who spends as much energy as you have trying to convince people what a "swinger" you once were, has some credibility issues.
GAC

I've never seen one of your post that contained anything useful. Your record remains perfect.

Boy, you should look up the word "ironic".

Not that you would understand the meaning.

You're nothing.
GAC

And on Edit: Quite frankly, i don't believe your stories about your sexual exploits. People who actually did it, don't talk about it. You talk about it. Ergo. . .

I'll give you plenty of time to look up the big words.

TooL!

I'm NOT surprised that you never got laid in the 1970s.

God doesn't look kindly on gang bangs.

I don't think he's too upset.

:rofl:

Maybe God looks less kindly upon people who think they know what God looks kindly on.

And they skipped over it in church too.

"Thy shall not gang bang girl that gives consent to one."

Particularly young ones who are full of nature's hormones.

You should have.

:+

But if you have God's number, I'd like to know it, so I can ask him questions.

And if this is really your response, then you've got no inner integrity.

You're out of step, not everyone else.

And I'm failing.

can you clear that issue up for once and for all?

their dates better before bedding them. It won't help in all cases, but maybe treating a sexual relationship a little more seriously is in order.

better before bedding them. Why have sex with someone you don't trust?

She brought the boys to the place where the encounter took place. The boyfriend spoke to her minutes after the encounter and never said she was drunk. Immediately after the convo they went to campus security. No mention there of drunkenness. She never claimed drunkenness. Nothing in the news at all about alcohol. So? Where does this come from?

Too many emotions from the gang-bang super-thread, methinks. :banghead:

That still doesn't make gang-banging any less stupid.

Much of the time having sex while in love is more amazing than when not. Not always, but in today's world, it's usually better to be with someone you can trust and who cares for you.

But sometimes people do things spur of the moment, and it turns out okay. I'll go ahead and project here that if this girl hadn't had that "oops" moment when the boyfriend showed up in her dorm room, she would've gone to class Monday thinking life was just amazing. :)

Actually I think it's much worse that she cheated on the boyfriend than what she did in the bathroom. :shrug:

Cosmic irony or priceless? Evidently there are some things money can't buy.

Is there some book you guys are reading like "Being a fundie moralizer without God" or "A Nanny Stater's guide to deciding what is best for others"?

Making judgments and getting holier than thou over other people's sexual choices and desires is always jackassery and almost always anti-self determination. You get to boss your junk not anyone else's. If someone wants to bang a brazillion people in a row while guzzling a handle of whiskey then that's on them.

Don't tread on me and there won't be a peep of protest from these lips. Judge not least ye be judged as well. Everyone wailing in the night and gnashing their teeth should submit to our lifestyle and habit probe, I guess.

:hi:

Naughty parts had better not be showing.

I reserve the right to think it may be absolutely revolting

What makes you think the very limited world that is yours is one that others would want to follow? By your own words, all of this is well beyond your range of experience or imagination. Why sex reviles you so thoroughly is a mystery, but the fact that it does is obvious.

It's not revolting to most people. You're out of step, not everyone else.

because you blanketly condemn everyone who doesn't think or act like you, and accuse them of being prudish, "reviled" by sex, and "out of step" simply because they don't, or didn't, want to have sex with every Tom, Dick and Harry (or Tom's hairy dick).

If you were a true believer in sexual liberation, you'd believe that it's no more your right to label people unlike you prudish, hung-up and out of step than it is their right to say something's wrong with you and your attitude.

what an ASSHOLE - that bastard assumes I'm a prude who hates sex because I find using people revolting :puke:

GET OVER YOURSELF

From zero to behaving crazy in under 10 seconds is very impressive. Nice job.

if consent is given for the sex, it can't be withdrawn retroactively, no matter how embarrassed you are.

I think my wife has a good point, the accuser did try to ruin those boys' lives. Going to prison is rumored to be scary, going to prison for rape is rumored to be even scarier.

She would have continued her college career while they rotted in jail.