Post: #1

This was a very entertaining documentary. Some takeaways:

1) Mattress Girl makes an appearance and reveals that all she wanted from her "rapist" was an apology, which makes no sense. This was a man she accused of anally raping her, and all she demanded was a "sorry"? To Louis's credit he questions her on this. Also, the fact she now has shocking blue hair makes me put the credibility of her account to literally zero.

2) There is little culpability expressed from the "victims" particularly the interviewee who claims she was "raped" in a frathouse. Louis fails to ask the pertinent questions: why did she go to this boy's room during a party? Why did she stay when he became persistent about having sex with her?

3) The production team could have found any number of men who genuinely were the victims of false allegations (like Mattress Girl's "assailant") but they must have spent months trying to find the slimiest, least likeable accused on the planet. He's an immigrant from Afghanistan, and extremely shady. He admits to fucking this girl in his room but rejects the idea she was too drunk to consent (despite her having vomited in his room).

4) There is simply not enough leeway given to the idea of false allegations in this documentary, and typically of the BBC it follows the usual leftist paradigm of devoting most of its sympathy and softball questions (however subtly) to the accusers.

5) Something not addressed in this documentary though is a very pertinent point considering there's the running theme of alcohol involved in these "assaults": I think a lot of these problems on campuses across Europe and America would be minimised if alcohol was either banned outright or regulated heavily. I realise this is completely unrealistic. But if girls are being raped left and right, why isn't something being done to prevent them getting so drunk they end up in compromising positions?

Post: #2

Fuck those hos.

Equality = two people being drunk and having sex are by definition equally guilty of raping each other or equally innocent of same.

They are also equally unreliable witnesses.

Any sane judge from yesteryear would look at the scenario of "drunkard raped by drunkard" and say...

Post: #3

(03-14-2019 10:08 AM)griffinmill Wrote:  This was a very entertaining documentary. Some takeaways:

1) Mattress Girl makes an appearance and reveals that all she wanted from her "rapist" was an apology, which makes no sense. This was a man she accused of anally raping her, and all she demanded was a "sorry"? To Louis's credit he questions her on this. Also, the fact she now has shocking blue hair makes me put the credibility of her account to literally zero.

2) There is little culpability expressed from the "victims" particularly the interviewee who claims she was "raped" in a frathouse. Louis fails to ask the pertinent questions: why did she go to this boy's room during a party? Why did she stay when he became persistent about having sex with her?

3) The production team could have found any number of men who genuinely were the victims of false allegations (like Mattress Girl's "assailant") but they must have spent months trying to find the slimiest, least likeable accused on the planet. He's an immigrant from Afghanistan, and extremely shady. He admits to fucking this girl in his room but rejects the idea she was too drunk to consent (despite her having vomited in his room).

4) There is simply not enough leeway given to the idea of false allegations in this documentary, and typically of the BBC it follows the usual leftist paradigm of devoting most of its sympathy and softball questions (however subtly) to the accusers.

5) Something not addressed in this documentary though is a very pertinent point considering there's the running theme of alcohol involved in these "assaults": I think a lot of these problems on campuses across Europe and America would be minimised if alcohol was either banned outright or regulated heavily. I realise this is completely unrealistic. But if girls are being raped left and right, why isn't something being done to prevent them getting so drunk they end up in compromising positions?

Well Prohibition in America was basically a rebuke against men by feminists. They accused men of being worthless, too lazy to work, and beholden to the Devil's drink. Would be a bit strange to see that come up again, given how even liberal universities and grade school systems uniformly call Prohibition a large failure in American history. (which it was)

They could ban alcohol on a university campus grounds and they might get away with it, even after court challenges. That said, anything off campus at a house party will not be covered.

Post: #4

Theroux seems beloved by some early 20something girls right now so no wonder he makes a docu to appeal to them.

Post: #5

Early Theroux was great. His whole shtick was to be the wide eyed naive English dorkpretending to be gullible and eating up everything the interviewee said.

Then at the end of the show, the mask would come off and he'd ask real challenging questions and watch the subjects sputter and get defensive.

It always did seem like he went easier on the women, and even though I like him, I am leery about watching this because I don't want to see a show where a smart, incisive guy cucks out, rolls over, and lets women scratch his belly.

Post: #6

I watched this and thought it was as fair as it could get in the current climate, being a BBC production and all. I'm sure Theroux was hamstrung at some points in the final cut.

A few notes and comments (per the minutes and seconds):

* 34:40 - Holy fuck.. what? This is going on during his Title IX trial? If this is true, dude has total "intestinal fortitude" and an iron frame. Dark Triad types can either confirm or deny.. or most likely not -- being all secretive and stuff. The whole video, for 20-minutes, goes off the rails from this point. I laughed a lot.

* 41:10 - Yale put the main character up at a hotel where the interviewer met him to ask questions about the previous bullet point. Is that a hickey on the main character's neck? If so.. he's still mashing it up amidst it all. (Has anyone here given him a rep point yet?) I nearly expected the interviewer to demand: "Cry on command. Now. I know you want to."

* 50:20 - All of a sudden, this American horker, who "suddenly" found a home in the UK, had a penis in her -- despite her protests. I suppose her boss is very proud of her use of the office's coffee machine. Grade A questioning by the interviewer and the horker was very... umm... "convincing" (according to the BBC, despite its obvious laughability).

Last thought: I'd love a real body language expert to get their eyes on all of Theroux's raw footage of this biased hit piece against balancing out the USA Title IX bullshit and see what they have to say. I'm sure that even the interviewer would be called into question.

Let the chips fall where they may.