Black swans in personal relationships and preventing their adverse effects on FI

[fiby41]

Student expelled for rape has evidence he was the victim. Amherst refuses to review it.
OR
Black swans in personal relationships and preventing their adverse effects on FI.

Imagine that, that John Doe or Sandra Jones or MI wanted to FI (or a job.) Now regardless or however either of them complete their education, a tag of trouble-maker is permanently affixed on them. The world is very small and it doesn't take much effort on the employer's part to dig up such rarest of rare case in the history of a person he'd offer a job to. Such things affect employability, at least in this part of the world.

Anecdotal but real nonetheless:

You'd think that going out with a romantic interest to the nearest beach is the most harmless thing you could do.
Nope, couple arrives, find a secluded spot for themselves. Meandering teenage drug addicts ask for money with the threat of physical violence and at knife-point. Boy shows masochism, gets stabbed, teenagers flee the scene with the loot. Boy dies six days later in hospital.

Not sure how different cultural values affect this, but maybe the girl's resume and marriage prospects are now scarred, probably for life, due to possibly no fault of her own. Notice all these words denoting uncertainity? : Not sure how..., but maybe..., probably..., possibly...? They make it convenient for the interviewer to just skip to the next eligible candidate without involving themselves (cover your ass (CYA) policy) just like the college did. They want no part of it so there is a very real chance that employers wouldn't want any either. That is why the 7 day maximum limit exists in the Amherst incident.

So to prevent such black swans from disrupting your FI, what are our options? Where would you personally draw the line between: living your life on your terms right now vs factoring for a single unexpected turn of events starting from there threatening you from living your life on your terms in the future?

1. Don't pull your pants down until married?
2. Don't get so drunk that you won't remember anything else the next day?
3. Anything else?

Feel free to reply to this post; but for replying about the Amherst incident reading the linked article is a prerequisite:
http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/20/stude ... evidence-h

I recollect @Zalo mentioning that he studies at Amherst and that he is 'sexually active.' Do you have any 'insider information' or take for being in-the-know that you would like to share? I would like to read what you have to say about this although the incident itself happened in 2012.

The article is linked only for those who want the context for the questions in this post. For those who are more interested in the incident that replying to this post, here are the actual text messages that were exchanged: https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2 ... ssages.pdf.

[George the original one]

The only serious route for the unemployable is to become self-employed or entrepreneurial. Not your strength? Too bad, you'll learn.

[7Wannabe5]

@ OP- The two options you listed reduce vulnerability not fragility. The decision that increased fragility was entering into agreement to abide by the student conduct policy under the fragilista authority of Amherst. The first question I would ask in unraveling this tangle of poor practice would be why did the female student believe that it was in her self-interest to report the incident?

[fiby41]

The first question I would ask in unraveling this tangle of poor practice would be why did the female student believe that it was in her self-interest to report the incident?

What is the answer? My guess is post-coital tristesse, guilt and victim mentality.

Shame is when a person is condemned by others for something the person did which is known to others.

Guilt is when a code of conduct is self/culturally-imposed such a way that that the person who accepts the code feels shameful for breaching it regardless of the people who would condemn it know of it or not.

[7Wannabe5]

I think her behavior might have been consistent with delayed (I'm not saying correct) judgment call on "worse of two wrongs" and implications for broader community. For instance, let's say a group of drunken upper-middle-class teenagers decide to go pool-hopping one night in their golf-course community and one of them is bitten by a dog in one of the backyards into which they have trespassed. The teen who was bitten might initially be the opposite of inclined to report the incident, and might even continue on to have a jolly night of it, but the next day might give consideration to the possible fate of the toddlers who live next door to the residence with biting dog.

About 30 years ago, I attended a "Take Back the Night" rally against campus assault in an Amherst-like community and the keynote speech was on the topic of females being assaulted by their female lovers. Maybe it's time for a "Take Back the Night" rally at Amherst with keynote speech on the topic of males being sexually assaulted by females and how they can protect themselves from this possibility.