|
It's been said before, and I agree. This trial is not about whether or not the man raped her, it's about whether or not the sex they both admit to happening, was rape. By allowing people to call the intercourse "rape", they're planting a seed of guilt every time they use the word.
Also has been brought up, there are a ton of other ways to indicate non consensual intercourse. That's one. Instead of saying, "that man raped me", it should be, "that man and I had sex, but I did not consent". Yes, there is a huge difference in the wording used.
It seems that, in proving guilt, she's trying to say that she should be able to "not think". It scares me that someone who doesn't wish to ponder her words wants to send a person to jail over them.
If all that sends a person to jail is your "word", I would prefer that your "word" be a factual account of events from your perspective, not an emotional appeal, such as "that man raped me". Because really, "that man raped me" is just an emotional appeal.
Fire, etc.: "Rape" is not the name of the crime. It would be "sexual assault" or "sexual battery" or any one of a few other terms, depending on the charges and what it's proven they've done. "Rape" is not a technical word for anything, it's a colloquial, emotional word that represents a large body of sex crimes.
You may note that "sexual assault" was not banned (even though "sexual assault kit" was).
|