My take on the email and the party, considering the context, is that McFadden was very, very angry at the strippers for some reason, and the email was sent intending to express that anger in hyperbolic terms.

That doesn't mean he'd do anything, or did anything, of course.

One of these 3 had a prior assault conviction. There's no evidence I'm aware of that any of these 3 particular guys had any track record of verbal abuse towards women.

You do realize that the "group condemnation" you are so eager to throw around here is what is routinely used to roust people in ghettos, right? If a black kid wears the wrong clothes and has the wrong friends, he must be guilty of what they are guilty of right? I don't find that any more persuasive in this context than in that one. It's a pretty bad argument all the way around, and it demeans us all.

I'm not one of their attorneys and certainly not a "PR Rep" Degsme - whatever ludicrous excuse for a career one imagines that to be... I am however, someone who can read a case history and contruct a linear narrative. I am not confused by technicalities. Most importantly Degsme, I was not attracted to this case by pre-conceived notions of victimology and guilt, and thus I am not distracted and/or overwhelmed that it failed to conform to a social agenda.

You should give that P.O.V. a whirl, if I do say so myself.

You're ignorant - either obdurately or helplessly so.

The AG has probably forgotten more about this case than you've obviously ever even known, so your accusations are absurd. The special prosecutors spent thousands of hours going over all of the "evidence", records, logs, statements, etc. They concluded that entire incident was a complete fabrication: concocted by a mentally-unstable substance-abusing prostitute, exacerbated by an agenda-driven faculty and news media, and ridden around the backstretch by a politically motivated DA with more interest in his pension that in serving justice. Now it turns out that imaginary horse was flogged to death.

That you continue to WANT to see miscreants where there are only earnest, intelligent, hard-working young men only proves how skewed and politicized your entire worldview is. One starts to get the impression your hostility is motivated by jealousy of their good fortune, success, and grace under pressure.

Perhaps instead of trying to tear others down, you'd be better served by improving upon yourself?

and "fair use"? Nor do you believe that "American Psycho" was assigned reading?

Obviously you know nothing about the Duke English Dept.

Because:

#1 - the skinning reference, among other grotesqueries is clearly in the book. And the reference to university-issued athletic wear? is clearly parody.

#2 - None of the three players you're so intent on villifying sent that email anyway. Which makes it as pertinent to your name-calling as the price of tea in Bangalore. Get it? Next time, try "nanny-nanny-boo-boo your lacrosse team didn't win the national championship after all." At least it would have the benefit of being relevant.

Tangentally, you need to pull up your drawers: your jealousy is showing!

Let me see the syllabus and I'll believe you.

...but both are important. I also think psychoactive drugs should not be outlawed; just frowned upon. Same as cigarettes are legal, but have become socially frowned upon.

And of course, the point of the final paragraph of my top post was that our society has double standard -- we're willing to apply a moral judgement to what we see as overly promiscuous females (they're "not nice girls"), but we're not willing to make the same kind of judgement about boorish, sexually agressive males (they apparently ARE "nice boys").

Here you go:

2006 Fall English

2004 Spring English

2006 Fall Lit

2006 Fall Theater

2nd try - links didn't come through completely the first time:

2006 Fall ENGLISH 26S-01 (http://www.aas.duke.edu/reg/s­ynopsis/view.cgi?term=1180&s=0­1&action=display&subj=ENGLISH&­course=26S)

2004 Spring ENGLISH 90AS-02 (http://www.aas.duke.edu/reg/s­ynopsis/view.cgi?s=02&action=d­isplay&subj=ENGLISH&course=90A­S&sem=1000)

2006 Fall LIT 112-01 (http://www.aas.duke.edu/reg/s­ynopsis/view.cgi?term=1180&s=0­1&action=display&subj=LIT&cour­se=112)

2006 Fall THEATRST 178-02 (http://www.aas.duke.edu/reg/s­ynopsis/view.cgi?s=02&action=d­isplay&subj=THEATRST&course=17­8&sem=1180)

Young men fight. Young men tell crude and inappropriate jokes. As a younger man, I know I told more than a few jokes which could be construed as racist, sexist, or somehow offensive. I've also been in fights, since I'm a guy who's not a complete boring wuss. I've also been to strip clubs and bachelor parties, because straight guys love naked women.

Everyone here is living in a fantasy world if they believe that fighting, tasteless jokes, or hiring strippers in any way qualifies as abberant behavior for young men.

"I've also been in fights, since I'm a guy who's not a complete boring wuss." Right, because only a wuss would seek to solve problems non-violently. There's some retrograde blather for you.

For the record, yeah, I've been in a fight, after trying very hard to avoid it. Ended very quickly, after two hits: I hit him, he hit the ground. (Having your kneecap kicked will do that. Only an idiot fights with just his fists.)

And I think paying for sex (or sexually-explicit entertainment), while it shouldn't be illegal, is kind of pathetic. "Straight guys love naked women"? Please. What exactly does love have to do with that? Try, "pathetic, horny men who can't get a date gratify their urges by paying girls who would never in a million years dream of dating them to get naked." I certainly like seeing a girl naked if she's somebody I like -- like, my girlfriend -- but random strangers? Boooooorrrrring. And a waste of money.