Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Demeter
I understand what you are saying, krwlz. The word rape carries a strong image. However, unless the word is used falsely, it shouldn't be denied.
For an assault victim, using the words 'not consentual' doesn't well describe the violation and damage done to him/her.
And it's not so much this case that bothers me, but rather, the precedent that may follow.
When a child points to an abuser and says 'that man had non-consensual sex with me' does it really accurately describe what happened?
|
That child could as easily say "That man sexually assaulted me" which does accurately describe what happened.
The thing with this case is, we don't know if she was raped. We don't know if she was a victim. Hell, the guy she's suing could very well be the victim of false charges right now.
That's what needs to get decided.
And as for precedent, I'm fairly certain that if a judge is allowed to ban any words, it isn't without precedent. Nor will it be limited to rape cases in the future.
Just so we're on the same page, I'm not defending rape, it is one of the most disgusting, despicable things a human being can do. We just don't know if it happened.
EDIT: Just another thought. This case is different than a standard rape case. We're not trying to decide if this is the guy who raped a woman, and what the punishment is. It's more academic in nature, and a decision as to what the appropriate facts are, and how they play out. Slight difference, large distinction if you ask me.
If there was no doubt about it being rape, I imagine she would be able to use the words, and thats as it should be. But the act in question has yet to be defined, and rape would indicate a particular definition.