Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

JustJess · 12-09-2005, 07:26 AM

Precisely.
AV, I think you might be thinking a little naively. When they say the attackers present false evidence, that seems linked to perjury, not he said/she said. It's a problem when they put the victim on trial - yes, it must be established that her story is credible and that there is some kind of evidence to support it, but there is always a bit of physical evidence - if it were being gathered correctly, that is. There is trauma to the woman's body if she is taken forcibly. It'd be pretty difficult to fake that.

Is a person likely to make poor choices when drunk? Of course, that's half the reason people drink. But when they're too drunk to stand or talk coherently, yes, they're an idiot, but they are not able to consent to anything. (I don't know the particulars of the case quoted, but am suggesting circumstances instead.)

The very idea of a man being influenced so heavily by what a woman wears that he ignores the fact that she doesn't want to have sex with him... is ridiculously stupid and insulting. He couldn't help himself because she was wearing something sexy? Ridiculous. Who cares if she's had sex with 50 men, she didn't want to have sex with this one. That is the only point.

So based on the things quoted in this article, it sounds like yes, they need reform. What the hell kind of court lets a defense attorney show the victim's underwear? Obviously, not every woman is telling the truth, and/or some may be misguided. But 96%??? I doubt that's even possible. In the case quoted about the 16-year-old (towards the bottom) - how is 4 years sufficient time, especially when he didn't serve that time?

12-09-2005, 07:26 AM	#3 (permalink)
JustJess Unencapsulated Location: Kittyville	Precisely. AV, I think you might be thinking a little naively. When they say the attackers present false evidence, that seems linked to perjury, not he said/she said. It's a problem when they put the victim on trial - yes, it must be established that her story is credible and that there is some kind of evidence to support it, but there is always a bit of physical evidence - if it were being gathered correctly, that is. There is trauma to the woman's body if she is taken forcibly. It'd be pretty difficult to fake that. Is a person likely to make poor choices when drunk? Of course, that's half the reason people drink. But when they're too drunk to stand or talk coherently, yes, they're an idiot, but they are not able to consent to anything. (I don't know the particulars of the case quoted, but am suggesting circumstances instead.) The very idea of a man being influenced so heavily by what a woman wears that he ignores the fact that she doesn't want to have sex with him... is ridiculously stupid and insulting. He couldn't help himself because she was wearing something sexy? Ridiculous. Who cares if she's had sex with 50 men, she didn't want to have sex with this one. That is the only point. So based on the things quoted in this article, it sounds like yes, they need reform. What the hell kind of court lets a defense attorney show the victim's underwear? Obviously, not every woman is telling the truth, and/or some may be misguided. But 96%??? I doubt that's even possible. In the case quoted about the 16-year-old (towards the bottom) - how is 4 years sufficient time, especially when he didn't serve that time? __________________ My heart knows me better than I know myself, so I'm gonna let it do all the talkin'.