since some people have been SO insistent that i need to respond to the "actual charges" (what were those, exactly? goldsteinism?) ... first, why i didn't already.
i don't want anything to do with the scene (yes, your politics are a scene, get over it) and don't want to be involved in some kind of back and forth. i also don't think i want to get into talking about the specific "charges" since there were none and more importantly because i think to take such thuggish politicians at their word is to play into the idea that there was something sincere or meaningful in this action. i'm sure there were some who thought of it that way, maybe all of them. but unconscious calculations and manipulations are still calculations and manipulations.
but since you ask. there is of course a doctrine that says there are two types of sexual encounter; one is 100% consensual, comfortable etc, the other is "assault" which is generally translated to mean "violent rape, by a male, of a female". of course this sounds ridiculous when put so simply but this perspective has so many partisans in the "radical" scenes because it is a mobilizing ideology for the standard-bearers of this particular ideology, it provides a polarizing and simplistic analysis of the really complex problems around sexuality, and in fact it reinforces a lot of patriarchal dogma - masculine as active principle, female as passive and helpless victim, etc. and of course, as i pointed out, accusations which by definition cannot be questioned are a perfect weapon of character assassination in anyone's hands. of course the fact that the "victims" (or rather "survivors") can mobilize such organized and juridical violence shows that their matriarchy is every bit as patriarchal as patriarchy. one shudders to think of the kind of society they would bring into being.
anyway the truth is that i have never intentionally aggressed upon anyone in a sexual manner. i have been involved in sexual situations that weren't 100% communicative and which one or more parties felt weird about later. this shit happens and if any of those kids were older than 19 they would probably have a fucking clue about it by now and would realize that grownups can have actual conversations about these things. anyway like i said, it was never of an intent to coerce or take advantage of anyone. i do not believe that i have ever been coercive. i have relied maybe too much on trying to read body language instead of asking 'is this okay, etc' with partners i didn't know well, and i have certainly learned better from that. that said i still think that what happened was a totally insane and disproportionate response that in its very form belies its ulterior motives. i have also found that some people simply don't like to communicate directly, and instead they blame someone else and bottle up their negative emotions until they have fermented and become very toxic.
apparently what happened in sc had specifically to do with a drunken one night stand i had with someone who was not happy to wake up with a bunch of hickies the next day. i apologized and this person said it was fine and we in fact remained friends for some time after that. (did we really?) so it's really not clear to me what i should have done differently at that point, when either she changed her mind retroactively or just deliberately miscommunicated to me (why?). another person's name was mentioned who was not consulted about the action, did not hear about it til after it happened and was completely horrified about it. so good job there.
and i did try to contact the "women's" group when i heard i was being discussed, with openness, with respect to their group and the idea of accountability. their response? only to expel the person who had told me because supposedly their deliberations were secret - although obviously a bunch of men had been made aware of it already - apparently the decision had already been made. covert authoritarianism par excellence.
so, i'm not a rapist, and if you're down with the rumor mill, then do us all a favor and fast-forward your cultish behavior to the group suicide phase. this was not about healing or fixing anything or fighting patriarchy. it was just some high school drama bullshit like your whole fucking 'movement'. politics without admitted politicians is still politics. people who call themselves whatever-ists still have party lines, leaders and scapegoats. no politics is good politics.
the people behind this deserve to have their homes invaded by insane masked vigilantes who kidnap and torture the shit out of them. no lie. the most perfect hell for hypocrites is to suffer what they have imposed on others. obsessing on revenge is unhealthy and unfit for rational adults - i'm sure that's a big part of where this came from given that the people involved, like most "radical students" and the like, are overly spoiled children. however prudent preparation is not, and anyone who comes at me again will have their blood shed - that is a promise. besides, i'm sure you can find some other scapegoats, probably a lot of guys who actually deserve it, hell we've all met or heard about them. most of them just had more friends than me.
if i had to pick one thing to be ashamed of, it would be that i wasted years of my life seeking friends among pretentious, spoiled, self-righteous, conceited children of the bourgeois who cloaked and channeled their ressentiment, guilt and other dysfunctions into ideological fervor that made them believe their self-important scenesterism and fucked up agendas were going to bring some kind of utopia.
grow the fuck up or kill yourselves. this is the last message, seriously. if you look below you will see some comments made by other people from the (now in decline) santa cruz radical student milieu who are unfortunately too terrified by the thug to put their name to any of their statements, but at least here you can see more than a one sided version or mine.