She Only Consented to the First 5 Guys in the Ketamine-Fueled Orgy You Sickos!
Let us dispense at once with the crude binary now dominating discussion of the October 2024 Chi Phi incident. The woman either fully consented to a ketamine-fueled orgy or she was fully assaulted by seven men. Both claims are analytically defective. The accurate statement is simpler and more precise: she only consented to the first five guys in that ketamine-fueled orgy, you sickos.
Just because she’s a trampy whore, doesn’t mean she wants to be a trampy whore with everyone.
Clearly, the first five guys were six feet tall. The other two weren’t and that makes a difference. She has standards.
Consent is sequential, not transitive. Authorization granted to participants one through five does not travel forward to participants six and seven by some mystical principle of orgy continuity. The record supports affirmative engagement—however chemically assisted—with the initial five. It does not support the same with the remaining two. Therefore the two stand outside the zone of consent. Two non-consensual acts are enough. The existence of five prior consensual acts does not cancel them.
Some of you appear determined to treat the entire evening as a single indivisible transaction. This is an elementary category error. A multi-partner encounter is a series of discrete interactions. Consent to the first five is not a blanket license for whoever arrives sixth and seventh. To insist otherwise is to invent a doctrine of residual sexual permission that no coherent theory of autonomy has ever recognized. She only consented to the first five guys in that ketamine-fueled orgy, you sickos. The arithmetic is not complicated.
Voluntary intoxication is frequently cited as a complicating factor. New York law does not treat voluntary consumption of alcohol and ketamine as automatic negation of capacity. That observation is correct and irrelevant to the sequential count. Capacity to consent to five acts is fully compatible with absence of consent to the subsequent two. The pharmacology describes the environment; it does not erase the distinction between the five and the two.
Institutional processes that collapse the event into an all-or-nothing determination have compounded the error. University findings and prosecutorial hesitation both appear to have ignored the granular reality: five authorized, two unauthorized. Partial consent does not immunize the non-consented remainder. Paying for the first five courses does not obligate payment for the sixth and seventh. The same logic applies here.The woman who consented to the first five and withheld consent from the rest occupies the status of victim with respect to the rest. That status is not diluted by the earlier yeses. She only consented to the first five guys in that ketamine-fueled orgy, you sickos. The rest is non-consensual. The distinction is elementary. The failure to observe it is not.
About Author
