An Open Letter to Team Lloyd Irvin Affiliates

[Nomad Nemesis**]

i don't care about that sort of thing tbh, i don't say anything on here i wouldn't say in person

that is not the point. someone searches your name and all these rape threads come up.

doesn't matter what you said in them. still bad.

 

[Vitamin C]

A girl being beaten, penetrated without consent by two guys then left for dead in a parking lot is rape.

A girl getting drunk, going home with several equally-drunk fratboys and having consensual sex with them during the course of the night then regretting it the next morning is not rape.

Frankly, calling the latter rape is a grievous insult to women who actually are victims of rape.

There are a number of things which I feel you may be overlooking, and which no one can actually know.
The level of intoxication of any of the parties. A 17 year old girl will become drunk far faster than larger, 20+ year old men. It is just as possible, if not more likely, that she was intoxicated to a point of being unable to legally provide consent as it is she was rearing and ready to take on 10 guys.
Even if she was fully consenting to the first two guys, that does not imply consent for everyone else in the apartment to line up for their turn, she would need to provide each and every one of them with explicit consent. Nobody can provide consent for another person.
There is more to rape than jumping from the bushes and dragging a woman into an alley way at knife point. People far too often gloss over date rapes, marital rapes, child abuse and the like.

The women who are assaulted by strangers have gone through horrible things, no doubt. But saying that a girl who is abused by her father year after year or a wife who is sold to her husband's friend for a night is not rape and not every bit as bad in its own way confuses me. The nonchalant minimization of any event which has been found by the court to be rape is a problem.

Whatever though, your post about her being a regretful drunk slut is why so many people never speak up about it. I'm done here.

 

[climax]

Wow. I mean I do not know the details of this case other than what we have from a limited amount of articles. If that is true it is pretty sickening. That being said, if he had been teaching rape prevention courses (did he do this recently or was this a while ago?) and doing a lot of other good for the community it could be a signal he has at least been trying to be a functioning member of society.

I hate making these types of arguments because people take it as you are siding with criminal and not considering the victim, which is not true... but I am going to make it anyway.

When you allegedly commit a crime, 20 years pass and it comes to light - are we going to tell businesses that he helped grow and support that he needs to cut ties? Are we going to tell students that are getting an opportunity they otherwise would not get that they have to lose on it because the person giving it to them allegedly did something 20 years ago?

If he did these things there are no excuses and he should have done time and paid for his crimes but that is no longer an option - if he has shown signs that he is trying to function in society and contribute that is a lot more than other convicts/criminals, and alleged criminals are doing. Is this a justification for what he did? Hell no.

As much as I hate his marketing tactics, he has helped a lot of schools become successful. His affiliate academies must enjoy being affiliated and profit from it, otherwise they would not keeping paying the fee. If they determine staying with him will hurt their business, they will move on.... if not, they will keep the affiliation, I don't think an incident from 20 years ago that he was not convicted for is going to be enough for a business to switch gears from a successful plan.

He also has a whole team of students who have an opportunity to have the success they are looking for that they otherwise might not have. Likewise, are we going to say this should be taken away from them because the instructor had this happen 20 years ago?

Again, I do not want to diminish what he may have done, terrible... but, in society we hear it so often - we need to integrate convicts back into society, our re-offense rates are to high, etc... then we take someone who was not convicted but seemingly is trying to do good and say 20 years later we should try and say that we should attempt to remove success from him (and harm others who are enjoying that success on various levels as well)....



EDIT: Why do people make so many assumptions. Fact is, we do not know exactly what happened in Lloyd Irvin's case or in the more recent one with the students that has come to light. "Oh, she was at a party with them and she was drunk, it couldn't have been rape" - stuff like this is jumping to conclusions.....

I even saw a guy post on FB about the more recent event with the students and he claimed to know the girl and said some unfavorable things about her and then jumped to the conclusion that it could not have been rape because of the things he said about her.... wtf man. Sure, it makes opens up the realm of doubt a little bit but the evidence is the evidence.

Bottom line, because one was at a party, it does not mean it was not a rape - doesn't mean it was.. you take the other evidence and put it together and come to a conclusion, not a simple circumstance and jump to a conclusion.

 

[Hendo89]

that is not the point. someone searches your name and all these rape threads come up.

doesn't matter what you said in them. still bad.

I think he means he doesnt care what they find.

 

[Higher Learning]

I think he means he doesnt care what they find.

exactly

 

[SuperSuperRambo]

This has no place in this forum. Figure out some other way to organize your boycott if you feel the need.