Surveillance video from the resort shows that the girls were drinking at the resort's Dragon's Ultra Lounge (the drinking age in the Bahamas is 18, and the girls were both 17), and occasionally kissing each other when Wittels and his friends approached the bar area. A source said the video shows the girls gesturing for the young men to join them, and that Wittels and two friends obliged.
The video showed that the two young women followed the young men to a private party, where the incident allegedly happened. Garrett and his friends Robert Rothschild, 21 and Jonathan Oberti 21 were charged with rape. The three young men admit to having sex with the women, but insist it was consensual. The age of consent in the Bahamas is 16, so age is not an issue in the charges. At issue is that the girls claim they don't remember what happened. The charges stem from the fact that the girls might have been so impaired that they were unable to consent to the sex. Two other friends of Garrett's have also been held in connection to the incident, but they were not charged with rape.
The father of one of the girls called police after his daughter and her companion returned to their hotel room, a source said. Police in the Bahamas conducted blood tests to see if the young women had been slipped a date-rape drug. The tests revealed no sign of drugs. Garrett was released on a bond of $10,000 after a court hearing.
Wayne Munroe, a Bahamian attorney who is representing all five young men, said it is "easy" to get arrested for rape in the Bahamas. "If somebody is charged with rape, the general inclination is to think there must be something to it," Munroe said. According to Munroe, many rape charges in the Bahamas should not be filed in the first place. Munroe said this arrest-first, ask-questions-later policy evolved from a complaint by a former U.S. ambassador who alleged the Bahamian police did not take rape cases seriously.
Garrett is a superstar college athlete. He currently has a 56 game hitting streak, the second-longest hitting streak in the history of the NCAA, and is behind only to the record of 58 games held by Robin Ventura. Earlier this year, he has been nominated for ESPN’s annual ESPY Awards in the “Best College Male Athlete” category. Garrett's father is a prominent Miami orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Michael Wittels.
Garrett is described as deeply religious. Before each game, he kneels in the outfield and recites the Shema, the Jewish prayer declaring the unity of God. He also carries a travel mezuzah, which contains the Shema prayer, and on road trips he brings a copy of the Jewish Wayfarer's Prayer. Garrett's parents are wary of the media coverage surrounding his hitting streak, citing their fear that others will give their son the "ayin harah," or evil eye of jealousy, his father said. As for the rape charges: “Anyone can accuse anyone of anything at any time,” Dr. Wittels said. "[Garrett is] devastated that someone would accuse him of this.” Garrett is "not doing well, obviously," said Dr. Wittels. "He’s blown away. He’s devastated that someone would accuse him of this.” Dr. Wittels suggested that the girls were motivated to make the charges due to Garrett's success as a college athlete.
Analysis and Lessons
Assuming attorney Munroe has accurately described Bahama law regarding the "arrest-first, ask-questions-later" mentality when it comes to rape, it is, of course, a repulsive contortion of anything remotely resembling justice. Sadly, it is a policy too often followed in too many jurisdictions in the United States. A prominent example is found in the Hofstra false rape case. It is much easier to simply arrest any male charged, without regard for his possible innocence, rather than sort out the facts first and assume the remote risk that the accused will "rape again," and thus embarrass the law enforcement official who "delayed" making an arrest.
The instant allegation fits a classic pattern of false rape cases we deal with on this site: a "he said/she said" rape charge involving persons of college age or younger coated with a patina of alcohol; more than one guy having sex with a female accuser; and a loved one of an accuser who is outraged by the sexual encounter.
The girls, who were drinking on their own before they ever met the young men, say they cannot remember what happened, and the charges stem from the fact that the girls might have been so impaired that they were unable to consent to the sex. Yet, we are told, a video shows that the girls were perfectly capable of gesturing for the young men to join them, and to follow the young men to a room where they had sex. The girls were also able to make it back to their own hotel room after the fact. No evidence, of which we are aware, indicates that the young men plied the girls with alcohol. A blood test reveals that the young men did not slip date rape drugs in the girls' drinks.
The father of one of the accusers called the police when his daughter returned to her room. The father did not earlier prevent his underage daughter from from drinking illegally with her friend at a bar in the same hotel where he was staying. Moreover, there is no indication that the hotel was charged for serving alcohol to minors. It is more than possible that the bartender did not believe that the girls had imbibed to excess when he or she was serving them. If that's the case, it is questionable whether Garrett and his friends should have reasonably suspected that the girls were too drunk to engage in a sexual romp.
We have frequently cautioned young men that the exact scenario described here is a recipe for a false rape claim. The alcohol-fueled hook-up culture is a disaster for too many young men. To suggest that couples should never drink and fool around denies eons of accumulated knowledge about gender relations. Young people often drink to lower inhibitions, knowing full well where it will lead. But asking the police or a jury to sort out what happened afterwards based on a "he said/she said" account puts an impossible burden on our law enforcement and judicial apparatuses, even in the "arrest-first, ask-questions-later" Bahamas. Young men do not generally understand that women experience much greater after-the-fact regret than men do. Sometimes feelings of regret are translated into feelings of "being used," and sometimes feelings of "being used" are misinterpreted or purposefully misconstrued as "rape." Unfortunately, the prevailing feminist mantra is for young women to "party like the guys," without bothering to tell them about the regret asymmetry that separates the genders.
We have also written extensively about the fact that false rape claims flourish in an environment where young women feel a need to keep a consensual sexual encounter from someone important to them, namely, a father, a boyfriend, or girlfriends. A prime example is when the young woman is still under her parents' financial or emotional thumb, and they disapprove of her having sex, especially of the one-night-stand variety. As we previously wrote here: "If a girl needs to hide the fact that she's having sex with you from a parent, as most teen girls below college age do, [young men] are playing with fire."
In addition, we've described the scenario where more than one guy is having sex with a girl as "ground zero" for false rape claims. That's one of the allegations in this case. We wrote here: "We've seen this multiple times. The reasons are obvious: how on earth can she possibly explain this to a . . . parent. . . ? How will she hold her head up on campus? Most sane young women will deeply regret that encounter after-the-fact and will worry that if word got out, it would destroy what's left of her reputation. . . . . Men should never, ever put themselves in this awful situation."
And, of course, Garrett's name is splashed all over the newspaper, but the identity of his accusers, who very well might be lying, is protected with all the tenacity that Clark Kent guards Superman's.
Garrett Wittels is, by all accounts, an upstanding young man. He now finds himself stranded in a situation that countless other young men his age have found themselves in, a nightmare world where his liberty, his entire future, hinges on some Bahamian official accurately sorting out a murky encounter with two young woman. When Garrett reads this post -- and my bet is he will -- he needs to know that he is not alone, that this happens all the time to young men who never dreamed it was possible. It happens to the best of young men, because when you are a 20-years-old male, with exploding testosterone, it is not easy to resist female temptations.
Here, like the mythical Sirens whose beautiful singing summoned ancient mariners to their deaths on rocky shores, the young women gestured for the young men to approach them in a bar, and to the men's great misfortune, they did.
Posts
67 comments:
"Surveillance video from the resort shows that the girls were drinking at the resort's Dragon's Ultra Lounge (the drinking age in the Bahamas is 18, and the girls were both 17), and occasionally kissing each other"
Believe it or not, there is actually a word for that behavior, "barsexual".
"At issue is that the girls claim they don't remember what happened. The charges stem from the fact that the girls might have been so impaired that they were unable to consent to the sex."
Yet, they somehow still remember that there was sex. Regardless, while alcoholics can have blackouts, the occurrence of alcoholic amnesia in non-addicts remains questionable.
Why is it that college girls are the only people routinely not held responsible for their drunken decisions, and only in regards to sex? We don't excuse anyone because they might have been too impaired to decide not to drive.
How else do you explain yourself to Daddy?
How else do you explain yourself to Daddy?
"Barsexual" -- I'm not surprised.
At least under American law in most jurisdictions, whehter they remembered what happened is beside the point. The question is whether, at the time, they manifested consent through their words or actions, and whether it appeared to the young men that the young women were able to make that decision.
And note that the question is not whether alcohol lowered their inhibitions, because it likely did -- as they likely intended.
"How else do you explain yourself to Daddy?"
My guess is, this is the crux of it.
The gender / raunch community as a whole, stand behind these girls right to claim "rape", (if it keeps them out of trouble with their father; for underage drinking).
I hope the law enforcement that slandered these guys gets sued for slander.
What about when girls "willfully forget"??, cause they know it will keep them out of trouble.
What are the chances that both of the girls are blackout drinkers???I would think the chances are better they are both blackout liars, and had the liars pact conversation with each other before they went home that night.
someone should contact these boys for their side of the story.
It is odd to describe a man as upstanding and religious when he engages in alcohol fueled group sex. Let these slimeballs, male and female,rot.
The collapse of cultural "Rape hysteria", and the collapse of "domestic violence hysteria", would also mean the collapse of the "Gender / Raunch cultural POWER GRAB".
"Let these slimeballs, male and female,rot."
Let he who has no sin cast the first stone.
"It is odd to describe a man as upstanding and religious when he engages in alcohol fueled group sex. Let these slimeballs, male and female,rot."
You're missing the point, Robert; if you are morally offended at their fornication, you should also be morally offended at the girls' lying, at their false accusations, and the injustice meted out to the men, reprobates that they may be. Because immoral behaviour is immmoral behaviour, whether it is fornication, or lying, bearing false witness against your neighbour - remember that? Even the immoral and ungodly deserve fair treatment, and to not be accused of, and possibly charged for, crimes they did not commit. Get off your moral high horse, and actually care that justice be done, regardless of what you think of the participants in these acts. Isn't that what Christ would have you do?
Social conservatives of your stripe give all of us a bad name, when you lose sight of justice in your rush to condemn everybody, rather than leaving ultimate moral judgments up to God (who will judge all of us), and more usefully, trying to fight the anti-male bias in our society.
(Blogger wouldn't let me subscribe in my last post, hence this deletable one, allowing me to follow the discussion.)
Will S., agree. I am assuming, of course, that Garrett is innocent. The consensual sex incident recounted in this post is not a lifestyle I endorse. But while I wish that, if I were a 20-year-old guy, I would not not give into the temptation presented here, I could not declare unequivocally that I would be able to do so.
”The instant allegation fits a classic pattern of false rape cases we deal with on this site: a "he said/she said" rape charge involving persons of college age or younger coated with a patina of alcohol; more than one guy having sex with a female accuser; and a loved one of an accuser who is outraged by the sexual encounter.”
You nailed it! And, you stole my thunder.
I was going to challenge the assertion of Dr. Wittels:
”Dr. Wittels suggested that the girls were motivated to make the charges due to Garrett's success as a college athlete.”
With it more likely simply being a matter of:
”The father of one of the girls called police after his daughter and her companion returned to their hotel room”
As you nicely put it:
”The reasons are obvious: how on earth can she possibly explain this to a . . . parent. . . ?”
As with so many instance on colleges (and, as we now know, at the US military academies), young women who are caught in underage drinking are highly likely to throw a convenient male (usually their sex partner) under the bus in an attempt to keep themselves out of trouble.
It’s really a sick, twisted trade-off – huge trouble, legal expenses, reputation harm, and possibly even prison for the guy(s), all to spare the girls (in this case) from perhaps being “grounded”, and not allowed to drink in the bar for the rest of their vacation.
Unfortunately, this is how girls are now raised to think of men as pawns to be used and abused at their discretion without any further regard to them. Five men get arrested, yet these girls feel no remorse and keep to their lies. It takes video surveillance (again) to sort out the reality from their lies.
Young men need to know just how little consideration many young women will give to their very lives should it better serve their purposes to claim that they were raped, and learn to act with appropriate caution.
One is never "too young" to start carrying a discrete recording device which can record evidence of consent and lucidity.
"Why is it that college girls are the only people routinely not held responsible for their drunken decisions, and only in regards to sex? We don't excuse anyone because they might have been too impaired to decide not to drive."
A great question, that. Of course we all can speculate as to the answer.
"It is odd to describe a man as upstanding and religious when he engages in alcohol fueled group sex"
I guess it depends on what sort of "religion" is being subscribed to. But most major religions exhort their adherents to abstain from this type of behavior.
This sort of behavior is not 'upstanding' though, although the original post never claimed that was the case.
"Young men do not generally understand that women experience much greater after-the-fact regret than men do."
This is the key point in the post IMHO. And that regret and shame needs to find a scapegoat.
As I have argued before, a man's key defense against a FRA is keep his behavior clean. It's not fair, women should and must be held responsible for their actions to be considered fully equal to men, but the fact of the matter is that our feminist-influenced culture considers women mere children when it comes to issues of sexuality.
The best way to win a fight is to not fight in the first place. Thus men can lower their risk of getting caught up in this sort of mess by avoiding interactions with these sort of low-life women anyway.
slw -- excellent analysis, as always.
Aside from the recording device, I wonder if Garrett and his friends had read our How to Avoid a False Rape Claim, posted just ten days before this incident, if we might have saved some or all of them from this fate. This was a classic case of young men doing everything wrong because they'd obviously never considered that the women who flirted with them, and willing engaged in sex with them, would do such a thing.
EW, I totally agree. You are, as always, the voice of reason.
For the record, you are correct -- I do not condone these one-night stands. But I also know that heaven is filled with sinners who made mistakes (I've made more than my share) but who tried not to be sinners.
"Dr. Wittels suggested that the girls were motivated to make the charges due to Garrett's success as a college athlete."
This Dad needs to keep his big fat mouth shut. He probably just sealed his son's fate making such a stupid remark.
How does Dad figure two 17 year old girls underage drinking in a Bahamian bar know Sonny is a big man on campus in Florida?
It's hardly likely they did.
Did Sonny know they were 17 and underaged drinkers? It's equally unlikely he did. Obviously all that praying before games didn't pay off.
I'd say these dads should have their heads knocked together - they're all responsible for turning out spoiled, entitled, irresponsible and trashy kids.
But who am I to judge?
Anonymous - "How does Dad figure two 17 year old girls underage drinking in a Bahamian bar know Sonny is a big man on campus in Florida?
It's hardly likely they did."
My thoughts exactly. Plus, the girls, both 17 years of age "claimed" to be college students. But, it's unlikely that one would find two 17-year old college students together.
The story doesn't make it clear, but I assume that it is what they told the young men, and, perhaps the bar tender.
And, even if they were a couple of prodigies, that would seem make it even less likely that they would follow college baseball.
Anonymous - "I'd say these dads should have their heads knocked together - they're all responsible for turning out spoiled, entitled, irresponsible and trashy kids."
Better still, as they are the legal guardians of their under-age offspring, they should be sued for the harms their little angles have caused to the young men.
These would appear to be families of means, so they would make a good target for a civil suit.
While I’m all for meaningful criminal punishments for women who make FRA’s, I’ve often thought that they best way to get it through to women about the evils of doing so would be to hit them financially (as well).
I’m not sure of the extent to which a criminal court can order the reservation of restitution, but it would seem logical to men (as a layman) that the legal expenses incurred by innocent victims are also damages for which court-ordered restitution could be sought.
I’d have to ask about the specifics, but, in the cases of criminal acts which cause documental loss/damage, it’s not uncommon for DA’s to ask the court to “reserve restitution” on behalf of the victims as part of the sentencing. I’m not entirely certain, but I’m guessing that this attaches liability in much the same way a civil suit would.
If I’m understanding it correctly, it would seem to be a way in which to obviate the need for victims to have to incur the additional expense of taking the perpetrators to civil court.
BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN
Why American men should boycott American women
http://boycottamericanwomen.blogspot.com/
I am an American man, and I have decided to boycott American women. In a nutshell, American women are the most likely to cheat on you, to divorce you, to get fat, to steal half of your money in the divorce courts, don't know how to cook or clean, don't want to have children, etc. Therefore, what intelligent man would want to get involved with American women?
American women are generally immature, selfish, extremely arrogant and self-centered, mentally unstable, irresponsible, and highly unchaste. The behavior of most American women is utterly disgusting, to say the least.
This blog is my attempt to explain why I feel American women are inferior to foreign women (non-American women), and why American men should boycott American women, and date/marry only foreign (non-American) women.
BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN!
I do not condemn everybody. I condemned the slime described in the original post.They include the tramps, the scumbag athletes, and the parents.
Its surprising to see parents still letting their daughters run wild in the islands after Natalee Holloway.
Robert - "I do not condemn everybody. I condemned the slime described in the original post.They include the tramps, the scumbag athletes, and the parents."
It seems as though you are "condemning" them all equally?
If so, this is emblematic of the trouble we typically see from Chivalrous white-knighting Social Conservative types – the extra effort made to always spread blame around so as to relieve the women from as much of it as possible.
You might as well have throw in the police, as some typically do, as also culpable. That way you could make it a four-way split.
The mistake is taking the focus off of those who are (always) primarily to blame when FRA’s are made – the ones who chose to make them.
Yes, the parents can be faulted for not properly supervising the activities of their children, and perhaps having made them into spoiled entitlement-princesses. The young college men for having hook-up sex with girls they were lead to believe were also college students. And, yes, even the police for the knee-jerk, CYA of arresting before investigating.
But, in trying to find fault with any or all of these, it dilutes the ultimate culpability of the true perpetrators – the only ones guilty of a criminal act - the girls who claimed they were raped rather than face the consequences of their own consensual behaviors. To me, this only helps to perpetuate the real problem.
The daddy should be horse whipped for raising such a dishonest whore.
Anonymous said...
BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN
Why American men should boycott American women
http://boycottamericanwomen.blogspot.com/
Who else but non American women love your yankee dolla long time?
Just because "foreign women" are disloyal to their own men in their own country does not mean they won't be totally devoted to you. For what? Three years, anyway?
Homely, over weight, elderly and socially gauche men may find this an acceptable alternative, but what about young, virle attractive American men?
Where are these mythical "foreign women" coming from anyway? I know one guy who has gone through two Russian women, another who just purchased his third Singapore hopeful.
I guess it's back to the catalogs.
Anonymous - ” The daddy should be horse whipped for raising such a dishonest whore.”
I’m not sure where this is coming from, but I’d argue that it would be entirely counter-productive.
The problem with FRA’s and the women who make them is that they hold men in low regard. The same spoiled whore who would sit back and let five innocent men face prison is not going to feel one bit of the sting of “daddy” getting beat as punishment for HER actions.
Two or three years ago, Glenn Sacks highlighted the story of a non-custodial father who was ordered jailed by a judge for his daughters refusal to attend school. Whipping even a father who spoiled his law-breaking lying daughter makes no more sense than jailing a man who had no control over her life. The net result is that some man gets to be the scapegoat to spare a woman from having to face punishment.
Anonymous - ” The daddy should be horse whipped for raising such a dishonest whore.”
From one news account:
”Surveillance video exists, Michael Wittels added, showing the girls -- and not the accused -- were the aggressors, at least in public.”
How can you be so sure they didn’t learn this from their mothers? Should their mothers perhaps be whipped instead?
If the girls don't remember what happened, how can they know they've been raped? "The boys followed us to party" video isn't evidence of anything.
It's too bad the boys already admitted having sex with them (they were probably questioned before finding out the girls don't remember anything), because if they had denied everything up front there would be no case at all. Unfortunately, Bahamian law might not be so strict on such evidentiary matters.
Some recommended reading for Robert and the anonymous poster who thinks daddy should take the whipping on his daughters behalf:
The V-Day Project: Meet the Vagina Men
Some accounts of other men who cannot seem to come to grips with the reality that woman have full human agency (including sexual agency), and who keep finding ways to blame themselves and other men instead of the women who caused the problems. The point where female-pedestalizing Chivalrous Social Conservative Christians reach across the isle to join hands with their natural allies, the male-hating gender-feminists, in their common goal to excuse female misbehavior and blame it all on males instead.
Before we defend the girl's Daddy too much, might I suggest HE is the one painting them into a "Cry Rape" corner, and is just as rsponsible for the FRA as they are?
He can't bear to face the fact that Princess is a little tramp, so he gives her the cry rape "out".
Just as the other father can't face the fact his Outfield Praying son The Saint was having a most sinful perverted group orgy by declaring ths was was a 'set up' to hurt his son's athletic career?
If you left the fathers out of the picture IN THIS CASE there would probably be no "case".
All five "kids" would be giggling to their friends about their hot romp in the Bahamas, and both fathers would still be holding the "my kid's a saint" delusion.
"The question is whether, at the time, they manifested consent through their words or actions, and whether it appeared to the young men that the young women were able to make that decision."
So if the accusers can't remember, and the accused said it was consensual, then who was there to say that they didn't manifest consent through their words or actions?
Anonymous - "HE is the one painting them into a "Cry Rape" corner, and is just as rsponsible for the FRA as they are?"
While I'd hold the father(s) responsible for being gullible chumps (at best), I'd not hold event he girls father as "equally responsible".
The reality is that the FRA issue is much larger than this one case, or any other given case.
In any given case, we might "pick" our way through the facts and could find any number of additional players who are also culpable. Yet, the single common denominator is the person who choses to make the FRA. And, it is that person who is always ultimately responsible as the primary culprit.
Now, in the case above, "daddy" may be responsible for his daughters bad upbringing, spoiling her, and believing her every lie; yet, it is hard to fathom that he "pushed" her and her friend into the "cry rape" card.
No, they chose to try to play that card themselves. It might be that they felt (with good reason) that it would be the most effective approach to blaming someone else for their own bad behaviors (the rape card has been very effective for women and girls throughout recorded history). But, if they simply needed an excuse for returning obviously drunk, they might have chosen to claim something along the lines of: "We didn't know there was alcohol in those drinks we were served"; or, they might simply have apologized for having gotten drunk.
I would doubt that this father took the approach of "give me a way to blame someone else", but is merely guilty of being too willing to believe the "rape" lie.
Frankly, in that, he's hardly alone. Most every man is inclined to believe a woman or girl who claims that she was raped (it's a whole other discussion on why we men are that way). Thus, I cannot see him as anywhere near equally to blame as are the girls.
I hold the exact same in other cases where other men (and women) too easily buy into the lie. Fathers, husbands, boyfriends, cops and prosecutors are all susceptible to being duped, and they may respond very, very badly and unjustly. But, the underlying fact remains - they were duped by another who chose to tell a lie.
just 150 years ago, these girls fathers would be arrested when their daughters drank illegally.
when these girls drink now..its the boys that are with them that get arrested.
Anonymous - ”Before we defend the girl's Daddy too much, might I suggest HE is the one painting them into a "Cry Rape" corner, and is just as rsponsible for the FRA as they are?”
Another thought on this one:
Your point seem to be that we can blame this one (at least equally) on a male by insinuating that he forced their hand and made them repeat their lies in reporting them to police.
I’d counter the idea that a man can be blamed for believing a rape lie with a well known example of man who did not believe a rape lie, yet the woman chose to repeat and report never-the-less.
We know from his statements toe the NY Post that Danmell Ndonye’s boyfriend did not believe her (alibi) claim of having been raped. It was his non-belief that prompted her to go to the police in an effort to convince him of her (non-existent) veracity. If you can hold the father guilty for making the girls tell their lies to police in an effort to make him believe, would you also hold Danmell Ndonye’s boyfriend guilty for making her tell her lies to police in an effort to make him believe?
Substantively, there is no difference between the two cases.
In each, the liars could have chosen to “come clean” rather than escalate the situation by going to the police. And, once alone with police investigators, they could have admitted that no crime had occurred. Yet, even given what it would mean for their victims, they still chose to act deliberately in a way that they knew would perpetuate the lie.
Sorry, I’m not buying this attempt to portray the men who are duped as being equally responsible. Otherwise, in keeping with the same (il)logic, you’d have to say Ndonye’s boyfriend was equally responsible for NOT being duped.
Just a general comment.
Many of the stories we report upon in this blog involve young men who've had sex that a lot of folks -- especially older people -- would call immoral. Hofstra was a prime example. I do not approve of such behavior, but nor will I judge someone's character based on what just might have been an isolated incident.
We are living in times where hook-ups, one night stands, and casual and very casual sex are not just common among college-aged and slightly older people, but the norm. I do not suggest that this alters the morality of such conduct, because morality can't be based on common consensus. But I think it does lessen culpability, because when you live in a culture where these sorts of behaviors flourish, and where they seem "normal," it is much easier to fall into it, and temptations are all the more difficult to resist. My own personal belief -- and I know a lot of you do not agree -- is that the moral compasses of a lot of people are off kilter. But all of this is far afield of the mission of this blog.
For the purposes of this blog, even kids who make mistakes can be victims, and promiscuity does not justify a false rape claim.
Here endeth the sermon.
SL Werner - have you never seen the face of a father after filing satutory rape charges?
Princess is vindicated, her innocence restored and the foolish guy who "thought" he loved her is forever branded a rapist?
Or the girl who recently committed suicide after her MOTHER publicly prodded her into making false rape accusations - AFTER she ALREADY told the truth?
I think the girls SHOULD have stood up to Daddy and INSISTED he face the reality they are trampy little sluts who gang bang strange guys they meet in bars.
I also think the star athlete should have stood up to his father and proclaimed himself a fraud and a perv who shares total stranger sex partners with his buddies, instead of allowing him to make an ass of himself proclaiming the girls were just out to wreck his son's saintliness...
This was some bad upbringing come home to roost - for all parties concerned.
The feminists have a point about the "slut shaming" thing. But I think parents have the better point in that they don't want their daughters getting pregnant with some guy they just met.
Archivist - I wouldn't have even mentioned the guy's behavior in this if it weren't for the article going on and on...and on about his deep religious belief, his public show of praying, and his father's asinine statement.
Any guy should be allowed to "hook up" without fear of false rape accusations, just as any woman should be able to walk down the street naked without being raped.
Anonymous - "I think the girls SHOULD have stood up to Daddy and INSISTED he face the reality they are trampy little sluts who gang bang strange guys they meet in bars."
You are presuming something that, unless you are that father, you CANNOT know. On what do you base this notion of yours that these girls wished to stand up to the father and make the truth known.
From what we are told in the news accounts, the father confronted the girls about their drinking, and they pulled the "rape card" in an effort to refocus the blame on the young men.
You may be new to this blog, and thus may not be aware that my wife is a prosecutor, so I have some insight into the reactions of parents whose daughters have had sex (rape or not). And, I have on numerous occasions brought up the issue of parentally-driven statutory rape prosecutions. The thing about those situations is that the girls involved do not claim that the sex was non-consensual (the instance of the mother pushing her daughter into the lie is more the exception than it is the rule).
The reason that, alone with an investigator (and, parents will be asked to leave so that they do not interfere) these girls did not come clean is much. Much more likely that they believed that they could still get away with their drinking by continuing to lie.
Unless you have something that would demonstrate that this father (and, presumably the other father and both mothers) demanded that the girls stick to their stories or else they would face severe consequences, I don’t believe you can make anything approaching a compelling case that the girls had “no choice but to lie”.
Hate to bring this up, since so many people didn't care for it, but . . .
http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/12/elephant-in-room-that-feminists-and.html
"From what we are told in the news accounts, the father confronted the girls about their drinking, and they pulled the "rape card" in an effort to refocus the blame on the young men."
And... it worked!
I'm beginning to think there are no more stupid and corrupt creatures on the face of the earth than fathers of daughters. "Oh, my little princess never had a sexual thought or feeling in her life. Now, HANG THOSE NASTY SOBs that corrupted her!!!"
Anonymous - ”I'm beginning to think there are no more stupid and corrupt creatures on the face of the earth than fathers of daughters.”
To be fair, we’ve also had accounts of husbands who believed their wives rape lies – even killing their wives lovers based on the wife’s claim of rape.
We’ve also had accounts of boyfriends and other male friends attacking and even killing based on nothing but a woman or girls accusation of rape.
I get what you’re saying about fathers not wanting to recognize that their little girls have grown up to be sexual creatures. But, that goes just as much for the many mothers (often raising girls alone) who are the one pushing for their daughter’s boyfriends to be punished for having had sex with those daughters.
Even if fathers of daughters are the worst of the lot (and, I say that as the father of two daughters, now 25 and 22), they are hardly alone.
I think one of the real issues with this story is the poor reporting involved.
It’s not clear that the girls ever even told their parents about any sexual activity, and may have simply been shooting for “plausible deniability” given that it seems their claim is that the remember nothing. It may well be that the sex came out from the men being asked about the events a the party, not knowing that the girls were claiming nothing, offered that the previously undisclosed sex had been consensual. It may be that the girls have never claimed rape themselves, it having been merely implied by their claim of no knowledge of the sexual events disclosed by the men.
It may be that “daddy” never even suspected sex, but was simply mad about some guys taking the girls to a party and giving them alcohol.
We simply do not have enough information to know for sure.
What we do know is that the girls were drinking on their own, were behaving sexually on their own, and that they seem to have lied to the men that they were in college. All this seems to suggest a couple of "DTF" girls eager to hook-up with some college guys.
slw -- you have a great memory with the "dtf" thing. Has that come up even once since the Roethlisberger case?
It is the perversion of American law enforcement who "manufacture misinformation that false rape claims are extremely rare"; that lead the public to always believe a rape accusation EVEN WHEN THEY ARE LYING!!
Archivist - ”you have a great memory with the "dtf" thing. Has that come up even once since the Roethlisberger case?”
Actually, I was somewhat struck by what I see as similarities with the Roethlisberger case - not necessarily that Wittels was as well known and athlete, but that the behavior of the girls involved seemed to be similar, which is why I remembered the “DTF” thing.
We have girls out under-aged drinking and acting out (publicly) in a very sexualized manner. Along come what must have been seen as highly desirable older “men” (no doubt some mention was made of Wittels status, which while they may not have know the first thing about baseball, would still likely have keyed them in to his future earning potential, making him a worthy “notch” on their sexual belts).
And, in striking parallel, they willing accompany the group of men to a private party, where it is likely they could get much more (free) alcohol and be away from the general public for even more provocative sexual behaviors.
We also might well have what could be termed an evolving narrative of what happened, which grew increasingly from two girls out looking for a good time to claims that they remembered nothing and, ultimately, rape.
I really don’t think such situations, with girls out and “DTF”, are rare. I just think that we rarely hear about them, since they rarely involve well-known celebrities or athletes.
S - "It is the perversion of American law enforcement..."
Just when we had an "on-topic" discussion going...
Oh well.
I didn't get the impression these girls were gold diggers. Obviously they were in the Bahamas with their parents, not on the local prowl looking for Mr. Big Bucks.
Who says college athletes are potential big earners, anyway?
That the "don't remember" does not sound to me like they are crying rape - it sounds to me like they are trying to avoid that accusation while inadvertantly bumbling into another one with the same consequence.
While "I don't remember what happened" might have meant "I don't want to tell you what happened" to them, it meant "AWWWWW The Princess was defiled without her consent" to the father, and he's off and gone to the police. Frying pan into the fire.
Then we have the other father harumping and blustering about his son's pristine virtues as evidence by his praying on the ballfield and displaying his religious regalia as proof the girls are just tryin' to ruin his college baseball playing career.
Like I said - if these excitable fathers hadn't gotten involved and blown things out of proportion, there would be no "case" to speak of.
I DO believe there are MANY fathers all too happy to file rape claims on their daughter's behalf, whether the daughter "consents" or not.
"For the record, you are correct -- I do not condone these one-night stands. But I also know that heaven is filled with sinners who made mistakes (I've made more than my share) but who tried not to be sinners. "
Yes. And classily put as always.
I like the concept presented in your 'elephant in the room' post. It's not "victim-blaming" to assert that someone who made stupid choices does not bear some amount of responsibility for any ill consequences that befall them.
To claim otherwise, as I've heard many feminists do wrt an alleged rape victim's accountability for her own actions, thereby giving psychological cover for stupid decisions that made the accuser more vulnerable to an adverse event, is just ignant.
The college athlete discussed in this post made some dumb decisions. It appears from this armchair that he did not deserve to have his life destroyed and his freedom placed in question by a pair of inebriated, drunken low-life young women. Yet his actions contributed to him being in this situation.
His story is a case study in how not to behave, lest one tempt the FRA fates.
Anonymous - ”I didn't get the impression these girls were gold diggers. Obviously they were in the Bahamas with their parents, not on the local prowl looking for Mr. Big Bucks.
Who says college athletes are potential big earners, anyway?”
I guess I thought it would be more obvious that I was referring to his status being a marker for them of his high sexual marketplace value as an alpha-male, giving her socio-sexual “bragging rights” amongst her peers. Looking up and printing out a couple of articles about his accomplishments could be presented to her cohorts with the tell-all “Did him!” – easily understood by one and all to translate to: ”A guy like that has his pick of women, ad he picked me!”
Anonymous - ”I DO believe there are MANY fathers all too happy to file rape claims on their daughter's behalf, whether the daughter "consents" or not.”
As are many mothers. It does happen a lot. Here, in Colorado, prosecutors are blessed to have a “14/4” rule such that they can decline to prosecute without having to fear repercussions from angry parents.
The best way to win a fight is to not fight in the first place.
I disagree. We have to make a stand or this will just continue. If we don't fight back we will lose.
Masculist, I should have used the dictum "if you don't play with fire, you can't get burned" instead.
I agree that baloney like this should be fought and opposed to the utmost.
The best way to win a fight is to not fight in the first place.
I disagree. We have to make a stand or this will just continue. If we don't fight back we will lose.
"just 150 years ago, these girls fathers would be arrested when their daughters drank illegally."
I don't know where you got that, or if there drinking laws 150 years ago.
Jan 11, 2011 5:20:00 PM
Why hasn't this jackass been banned already? How many times does he have to keep repeating the same lies?
SLW - these are two drunk teeny boppers with their rich Daddy in the Bahamas advertising their wares and getting away with illegally drinking under Daddy's benevolent watch.
They already have "bragging rights".
One thing you may not understand is girls already "on top" don't need bragging rights.
Sometime "bragging rights" come from debasing themselves with a low class man, or a low class situation - such as this one was.
It certainly wasn't the guy's good looks.
You are suggesting quite a bit of indepth research for two drunken 17 year old Arkansas bimbettes to pull off whilst drinking illegally in a bar in the Bahamas that night - on Daddy's dime.
These two finally crossed Daddy's line by staying out all night with older guys. When confronted by an outraged father the next morning they simply claimed not to rememeber what happened - and it went to shit from there.
It doesn't sound like they took the blame themselves (again, "Im a little slut, Dad, lay off those poor innocent guys we gang banged all night), nor does it sound like they blamed the guys or even said the word "rape".
"I don't remember" was an "out" anyone of us might have taken in the same circumstance, not knowing it would be blown into a rape accusation.
17 year old girls have to be fairly new to bar hopping and drunken sex afterward scenes. I'm an adult woman and I didn't know saying "I don't remember" is considered rape.
Seriously, I invite you to suggest the best course of action these two should have taken when confronted by their outraged father. You've already rejected "Fuck off, Dad, I'm a horny little slut".
Anonymous - ”You are suggesting quite a bit of indepth research for two drunken 17 year old Arkansas bimbettes to pull off whilst drinking illegally in a bar in the Bahamas that night”
I’m simply suggesting that either Wittels or one of his buddies would likely have let it be known that he was a “big-time” college athlete. All guys understand the value of such a status marker for gaining an “in” with women. As I remarked earlier, it’s unlikely that these two girls followed any sports, let alone college baseball, but would have easily understood that this guy was highly regarded for his abilities. That would have equated to “high status” for a couple of high school girls.
Anonymous - ”One thing you may not understand is girls already "on top" don't need bragging rights.”
But I am familiar with the term/phenomenon of “Star F*ckers”.
Anonymous - ”I'm an adult woman and I didn't know saying "I don't remember" is considered rape.”
While I didn’t get into specifics, what I was suggesting was that A) the guys disclosed that there had been sexual activity (in claiming that it was consensual), while B) the girls claimed to have no knowledge of the events, leading to C) the police inferring that given their inability to consent, that it was rape.
Anonymous - ”Seriously, I invite you to suggest the best course of action these two should have taken when confronted by their outraged father.”
I don’t see where you get that they would have wished to challenge the father (or, perhaps all the parents – we are only told that one of the fathers called the police). It seems to me that the girls were sticking with a “plausible deniability” approach, as the first thing that the police seemed to have done was test them for “date-rape drugs”.
As long as they could get their parents to buy into their claim of not remembering anything that happened, why would they wish to have set their parents straight about the true nature of their activity?
If the parents were willing to believe that the “little angels” had been drugged and exploited by college guys, why go into such details as “we were making out in the bar, and spotted some older looking guys, who we invited over to join us, and then we went to a party with them”?
The whole “I don’t remember anything” bit is much better for them to deny any personal responsibility for anything that happened.
Bloggers acting up again...
1 of 3:
Anonymous - ”You are suggesting quite a bit of indepth research for two drunken 17 year old Arkansas bimbettes to pull off whilst drinking illegally in a bar in the Bahamas that night”
I’m simply suggesting that either Wittels or one of his buddies would likely have let it be known that he was a “big-time” college athlete. All guys understand the value of such a status marker for gaining an “in” with women. As I remarked earlier, it’s unlikely that these two girls followed any sports, let alone college baseball, but would have easily understood that this guy was highly regarded for his abilities. That would have equated to “high status” for a couple of high school girls.
Anonymous - ”One thing you may not understand is girls already "on top" don't need bragging rights.”
But I am familiar with the term/phenomenon of “Star F*ckers”.
Anonymous - ”I'm an adult woman and I didn't know saying "I don't remember" is considered rape.”
While I didn’t get into specifics, what I was suggesting was that A) the guys disclosed that there had been sexual activity (in claiming that it was consensual), while B) the girls claimed to have no knowledge of the events, leading to C) the police inferring that given their inability to consent, that it was rape.
2 of 3:
Anonymous - ”Seriously, I invite you to suggest the best course of action these two should have taken when confronted by their outraged father.”
I don’t see where you get that they would have wished to challenge the father (or, perhaps all the parents – we are only told that one of the fathers called the police). It seems to me that the girls were sticking with a “plausible deniability” approach, as the first thing that the police seemed to have done was test them for “date-rape drugs”.
As long as they could get their parents to buy into their claim of not remembering anything that happened, why would they wish to have set their parents straight about the true nature of their activity?
If the parents were willing to believe that the “little angels” had been drugged and exploited by college guys, why go into such details as “we were making out in the bar, and spotted some older looking guys, who we invited over to join us, and then we went to a party with them”?
The whole “I don’t remember anything” bit is much better for them to deny any personal responsibility for anything that happened.
3 of 3:
Anonymous - You've already rejected "Fuck off, Dad, I'm a horny little slut".
Do note that I’m not disagreeing with you that this is what they should have been honest enough to do.
And, in the same way, Wittels needs to confront his father and family with the truth that as start athlete, he is able to “trade” on that status to gain sexual access to lots of girls – and, in all likelihood, has done so for some time, and with many women.
I agree with your assessment that many, if not most parents today are unwilling to come to terms with the way their teenagers and young-adult children actually behave, and that many of them are quite easily falling into the “hookup culture”.
We don’t have any concrete info on any of the parties involved in this incident, but we do see some tell-tale signs. Underaged drinking, sexualized public behaviors, and even having a “private party” to which guys could invite girls all seem to present a strong case that all of them were amenable to that hookup culture.
Both Pierce Harlan and Elusive Wapiti are quite correct in noting that this should serve as a cautionary tale about alcohol-fueled hookups, for men and women, regardless of the final disposition of the rape case.
"Sometime "bragging rights" come from debasing themselves with a low class man, or a low class situation - such as this one was.
"It certainly wasn't the guy's good looks."
OH FOR GOODNESS SAKES! I am a woman, and he's fine.
Jan 12, 2011 11:29:00 AM
Agreed. As a star athlete he must be in excellent shape. And I don't see why commenters often feel the need to make these snarky comments.
Did anyone consider that these girls didn't get caught by dad doing anything and reported this on their own accord? It amazes me how many people are so quick to defend these guys without knowing any real facts. Have any of you seen a police report or statements from the girls? Perhaps a medical exam provided some evidence to law enforcement that gave them what they needed to charge these guys. And as far as being too impaired to consent ... it was reported that at least one of the girls threw up on herself while in the room. Does no one think it odd that three guys were nailing a girl while she threw up on herself? Perhaps you should all wait until more evidence emerges before judging.
Anonymous - "Did anyone consider that these girls didn't get caught by dad doing anything and reported this on their own accord?"
Did someone NOT read the news account?
"The father of one of the girls called police after his daughter and her companion returned to their hotel room"
Anonymous - "it was reported that at least one of the girls threw up on herself while in the room. Does no one think it odd that three guys were nailing a girl while she threw up on herself?"
Now who's speculating? How do you know that she didn't throw up well after having sex, but before leaving? Who knows, if she hadn't thrown up, perhaps the party would have gone even longer. We're all speculating, but do try to look at the few facts that the news accounts do provide - like the fact that the girls didn't go to authorities, one of the fathers did; and that the girls claim no knowledge (so they probably didn't report sexual activity to the police). Just inserting a little logic here...
"The whole “I don’t remember anything” bit is much better for them to deny any personal responsibility for anything that happened."
On this we agree.
Had I been in the same situation, I would have said the same thing, and I bet YOU would have too.
Negative Self appraising admissions are often after the fact after much soul searching, rather than immediately offered.
In this case, their attempt to stall blew up in their faces, which is too bad for all parties concerned.
I don't think parents of either gender teach their children not to be slutty these days(I remember my Dad specifically telling my brother that sharing sex partners with friends wasnt' "boys will be boys", it was disgusting and perverse), then act shocked and hurt to find out they NEEDED to be taught that.
"Your son's a rapist who defiled my innocent princess".
"your Daughter's a little slut out to ruin my golden boy's reputation".
I stand by my contention in this case it's Dad's Ego vs. Dad's Ego here, with some very poor parenting on all counts.
Hopefully this case will deflate before either Dad "wins".
It's now been revealed that there was no rape. It was all a plan by the Dad chaperoning the trip to extort money from Atlantis and/or the young men. Apparently, this gentlemen, in the last five years, has tried to make a Girls Gone Wild-type video at NASCAR events, tried to convince a woman she was sexually assaulted at a NASCAR race, and tried to get actors to stage a racial fight at a NASCAR race.
This time he stooped to a new low by involving his daughter's sexuality. Disgusting.
Post a Comment