Master Index of Archived Threads


The Infamy of Spring 1992 Revisited

G-Fafif Jan 12 2020 05:56 PM

Long, detailed, seemingly well-reported piece from Slate following up on the rape accusations leveled against Golden, Coleman and Boston 28 years ago (plus a smorgasbord of contemporary teammates' bad behavior). https://slate.com/culture/2020/01/mets-rape-accusation-spring-training-1991.html

A Boy Named Seo Jan 14 2020 03:58 PM Re: The Infamy of Spring 1992 Revisited

Like Anita Hill referenced in this piece, I can only imagine how differently all this might've gone down if it happened today instead of 92. Great, sad piece. And how shocking was it that Donald Trump's name somehow made it into a piece on rape and sexual assault?

Edgy MD Jan 15 2020 12:11 PM Re: The Infamy of Spring 1992 Revisited

Back then, part of me was able to compartmentalize this — to consign it to she-said-he-said territory like a good, little sports fan. I didn't and couldn't know the whole story so my job was mostly to suspend judgment and root. While I'm somewhat happy to say I wasn't all that successful at this, I tried, despite my utter lack of emotional commitment to Darryl Boston and Vince Coleman. The usual media embargo on the name of the accuser was in place. And while the name and biographical details leaked, I recognized the ethic and tried to avoid any information about her, despite it being that spring training period where you accumulate every stupid detail on the team. But one note did sink through — that her likeness was used as the model for a statue of a rock-climber, desplated in the window of a (West Side?) gymnasium. I'd have forgotten or ignored the detail if not for a day or two later, when I just happened to be walking past the gym with my friend Donna. She wondered why I had stopped, and I hopelessly tried to explain, "This is the woman accusing three Mets of rape," (it was gang-rape, actually) as if she was some sort of celebrity. She found my interest to be weird and lurid, but the truth is that the woman was now no longer abstract, but (literally) concrete, and me being forced to say the words out loud, to a womanfriend no less, made me feel deeply complicit and disgusted with myself.

whippoorwill Jan 15 2020 06:23 PM Re: The Infamy of Spring 1992 Revisited

Dykstra: ‘it's just a maid' 🤯

stevejrogers Jan 26 2020 04:12 PM Re: The Infamy of Spring 1992 Revisited

Couldn't help but think of the sad coincidence of this thread and article happening weeks before Kobe Bryant's death. There are twitter users, including those with “blue check marks,” (meaning official/“trusted” accounts of whomever is being represented) who aren't letting the Bryant mourning pass without bringing up the rape case from 2003.

Johnny Lunchbucket Jan 27 2020 06:52 AM Re: The Infamy of Spring 1992 Revisited

Just because he settled with the victim doesn't mean the victim wasn't choked into having nonconsensual sex.

LWFS Jan 27 2020 09:34 AM Re: The Infamy of Spring 1992 Revisited

I always hated the "don't speak ill of the dead" thing. I mean, if you're going to remember a guy or gal, remember a guy or gal in full.

batmagadanleadoff Jan 27 2020 10:20 AM Re: The Infamy of Spring 1992 Revisited

I always hated the "don't speak ill of the dead" thing. I mean, if you're going to remember a guy or gal, remember a guy or gal in full. Especially an A-list celebrity/public figure whom I assume nobody here knows personally. How long is that don't speak ill of the dead trope supposed to last? Forever? A short while? Can't be forever. Or what? Nobody can say bad stuff about Mussolini? Oh....And with respect to another post in this thread about something else: Unbelievable.

whippoorwill Jan 27 2020 11:17 AM Re: The Infamy of Spring 1992 Revisited

Okay I'm going to be the devils advocate here, and also go back to the original topic. Any idiot woman who goes with a man to a hotel room to give him a massage should know better than to expect to walk out unmolested. Just stupid Feel free to agree

whippoorwill Jan 27 2020 11:19 AM Re: The Infamy of Spring 1992 Revisited

And one more thing: do you think women don't have it drilled into our heads from the time we can walk to use caution???? Ask your females, boys.

whippoorwill Jan 27 2020 11:22 AM Re: The Infamy of Spring 1992 Revisited

Do I think these women deserve to be accosted? No But I also don't think some of these men deserve to be called rapists. What's the difference between her relationship with cone and darling and her relationship with Boston, strawberry and Coleman? None that I can see

LWFS Jan 27 2020 05:09 PM Re: The Infamy of Spring 1992 Revisited

With all due respect, that's fucked. That's a fucked sentiment. Also, when you say things like "they don't deserve to be accosted" and "they should know what's coming," you're contradicting yourself.

metsmarathon Jan 28 2020 07:47 AM Re: The Infamy of Spring 1992 Revisited

if i leave my car unlocked with the keys in it, and someone drives off with it, i still get to call them a car thief. hell, if i open the door to a valet, and watch him get into my car with the engine running, and drive off, i still get to call him a thief if he does anything other than park the fucking thing. why should it EVER be any different for a woman who says no?

whippoorwill Jan 28 2020 07:50 AM Re: The Infamy of Spring 1992 Revisited

🙄

whippoorwill Jan 28 2020 05:43 PM Re: The Infamy of Spring 1992 Revisited

Stupidest post ever

LWFS Jan 28 2020 06:18 PM Re: The Infamy of Spring 1992 Revisited

Thanks for your well-considered rebuttal on such a sensitive matter. Listen, I didn't mean to be dismissive above, but I've had many variations on this conversation with several women in my life lately, and I'm a little sick of trying to argue compassion into people. If you see women going through some of the same shit you've been through, and your response is a variant on "Fuck 'em, they should have known better," then, well... you do you. But yeah, if you're going to vocalize it, you may get some blowback.