This message was self-deleted by its author

[Bunny]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Bunny) on Tue Feb 7, 2012, 09:10 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Feldspar]

1. Legally speaking

prosecutors go with the charges they know they can win with (good for their careers) and rape is, of course, always the most difficult BECAUSE women (and girl children) are expected to be in a constant state of consent and to be penetrated is one of our primary functions. That's why rape is so very exceedingly rare and feminists are over-reacting and making stuff up.

Rape culture? Uh, yeah.

[justiceischeap]

2. Not knowing the case you're speaking of

it could be that there was no proof of rape. It sucks but often, I've noticed, if it comes down to a he said/she said, she often loses. I don't know if this is because there is a mentality that women are here for men's amusement and/or use or if it comes to strictly interpreting jury instructions. You're absolutely right, that logically, after being kidnapped and almost killed, that a woman wouldn't have consensual sex with this man, however, if you're following jury instructions literally, if there is no proof of said rape other than her word, you'd have to vote to acquit on that charge, as sickening as that thought is.

[Gormy Cuss]

3. It may have been a question of what constitutes rape in that state.

For example, if under statute physical force is necessary and she didn't actively fight him off it would be hard to get a conviction on the rape. If she was raped with an object or it was oral rape, those may not constitute rape under the statutes either.

Alternatively, the rape charge may have been bargained away as part of a plea deal.

And yes, in any of the above it's revolting that the rape charge didn't result in conviction.

[ismnotwasm]

4. Figures

And why I like this excerpt from IBTP;

"There are rules about what sort of woman can even attempt to make the “I said no” argument in court. Women who typically are not eligible to opt out of consent include: women who drink in bars, women who walk alone, women who walk at night, women who use drugs, women belonging to certain castes, women who dress a certain way, women who don’t dress a certain way, women who are married to men, women who have had multiple sex partners, women who may have said yes last month, women who may have said yes at the beginning but who, three minutes in, found it disagreeable and changed to “no,” women who didn’t fight back hard enough, women who didn’t tell anyone or report it right away, women whose physical similarity to pornulated women aroused the defendant, women whose behavior at the party aroused the defendant, teens with a “reputation,” and prostituted women.

Prostituted women are indistinguishable from sex itself. This is true to varying degrees of all women, but prostituted women particularly are imagined to manifest so cavalier an attitude toward being used at any and all times by any and all comers that it is considered impossible to rape them. Prostituted women can never say no to sex because they are sex.

The Twist-Solution

My wacky consent scheme flips it around. According to my scheme, women would abide in a persistent legal condition of not having given consent to sex. Conversely, men, who after all are constantly declaiming that their lack of impulse control is a product of evolution and there’s not a thing they can do about it, would abide in a persistent legal state of pre-rape.

Women can still have all the hetero-sex they want; if they adjudge that their dude hasn’t raped them, all they have to do is not call the cops.

But if, at any time during the course of the proceedings, up to and including the storied infinitesimal microsecond preceding the sacred spilling of dudely seed, the woman elects to biff off to the nearest taco stand; and if her egress from the sweaty tableau is in any way impeded by the pronger (such an impediment would include everything from “traditional” brute force, to that insistently whispered declamation “just a couple more minutes, I’m almost there” the dread seriousness of which the fervid oaf dramatizes by that ever-so-slight tightening of his grip on her wrist); or if, in three hours or three days or, perhaps in the case of childhood abuse, in 13 years it begins to dawn on her that she has been badly used by an opportunistic predator, she has simply to make a call.

Presto! The dude is already a rapist, because, legally, consent never existed.

The cessation of rape would be immediate. Men would begin aligning their boinking protocols along non-barbaric lines in a hurry. It would suddenly be in their best interest to make damn sure that nothing in their behavior, either prior or subsequent to hiding the salami, would cause their partner to believe she has been abused.

I have an idea for a great new product, too. SmartCervix. An undetectable microchip records pertinent information regarding any “encounter” — DNA typing, location via GPS, audio, video, date, time, etc — and sends it (encrypted, of course) to a remote third-party database where it can be retrieved by the client (you) whenever some dickwad goes all 2009 on your ass.

I revisit my wacky consent scheme annually whether it needs it or not"




http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/patriarchy-blaming-the-twisty-way/consent-or-the-legalization-of-womens-humanity/

[Cherchez la Femme]

5. It is absolutely absurd

Sadly unsurprising.

Do you recall any names of the primaries?