Free_the_thigh wrote:
only a virgin would think that a girl wearing a thong has no relevance to what she wanted that night.
Oh, you’ve much to learn.
Free_the_thigh wrote:
only a virgin would think that a girl wearing a thong has no relevance to what she wanted that night.
Oh, you’ve much to learn.
Is stupidity on behalf of women.
Women, if you want to be recognized as equals quit being so damn stupid
Meh, weak victim-blaming attempt.
Slankeyfletching wrote:
Victims of rape never are victims of rape a second time. What does this mean-remove yourself from potentially dangerous situations.
Rape is a serious threat for women, being such women should be more conscious of their environment and in tune with the intentions of their company.
A person wouldn't attempt to cuddle a grizzly bear or put a collar on it and take it to the dog park,the outcome is predictable.
I've never been hit by a car because they are dangerous and I am conciously alert whenever they are around.
I've never done cocaine because I stopped hanging out with people who choose to do it.
A lot of what is being referred to as "rape"
This is exactly how I feel about men who get falsely accused of rape. Why let yourself be a victim of something like that? Men need to be more conscious of their environment and not put themselves in a position where a tenable false accusation could be made.
yawntown wrote:
Meh, weak victim-blaming attempt.
Your right, I should speak in vague generalizations and catch all phrases.
Victim-blaming, I have to ask how many times a day do you use this term? Also, when was the last time you had an idea that wasn't fed to you by you r tv?
Victim blaming, such a ring to it. What's more intriguing and delightful, once you think about it everyone is a victim and everyone is a perpetrator, which means we can argue semantics all day and never achieve a better understanding.
What about this scenario:
Let's say you have a real acute propensity for bloodlust and you want to become a murderer but you don't want to go to jail, naturally you enlist in the military. Govment teaches you to kill then sends you over seas and you die. You wanted to kill but you didn't want to die.
Are you a victim?
Vs.
You have a real acute propensity for being lazy, irresponsible, and ignorant. You can't create your own direction so you choose to follow someone else's. You seek discipline by enlisting in the military. You are sent over seas and are killed.
Is this a victim?
I really need you to describe with brevity the merits of victimhood,please?
So far today I’ve used it once, in reference to a poor trolling attempt.
The age of consent is 16 in most states. As low as age 14 in a few
Slankeyfletching wrote:
Victims of rape never are victims of rape a second time.
Where did you pull this statistic out of? I know two women off the top of my head who were raped on more than one occasion throughout their lives. Both in completely different scenarios from their first time.
yawntown wrote:
So far today I’ve used it once, in reference to a poor trolling attempt.
Ahah! That makes your reference to my post the second use, which means your nothing more than a twittering finch who sings the same song again and over all day. Exactly what I assumed. Is it even apparent to you that your take on brevity discounts all things of relevance. Can I ask you some personal questions, when you read quietly to yourself do your lips move, do you often refer to reading as skimming, at a young age did your mother rush you to the hospital and demand they diagnose you with something just so she could have an explanation?
Nah brah, just the once to your weak troll post.
HRH wrote:
In Ireland, only hookers and sluts wear lacy throngs; good, clean Irish girls don’t.
So back before he was fired from Top Gear I remember Jeremy Clarkson writing in his column that he'd been been sent pre-GFC to Ireland to test a car and it was the first time he'd visited in 20-30 years and back then every woman looked like a ginger Cabbage patch kid but now they all looked like super models walking down the street, with Prada bags etc. He was amazed how wealth had transformed the country.
As in the US, it's hard to get a rape conviction in Ireland. Proof of consent is difficult if it is basically a "he said, she said" point of contention. In the absence of other evidence, a trivial thing can tip the balance one way or the other. Hence, the "lacy thong" comes into play. Interestingly, there was very little in the news articles about whether the physical evidence proved that a sex act actually occurred (the defendant seemed to deny that point). Perhaps the journalists were distracted by the "lacy thong" also. It's also not clear that the jurors concluded that the "lacy thong" was a decisive piece of evidence.
Wait a minute Jim stay away from him.
Lacy Thong? I think what might have been discussed is how he saw it in the first place.
Darwin’s Crazy Aunt wrote:
ustooge wrote:
Wearing a thong does not mean she was seeking sex.
It’s not the only reason to wear one, no. But I would say it’s reasonable to introduce it as one component of a larger body of evidence. Thong + fake ID + condoms, for example, is pretty clear evidence of knowing what you want, ahead of time, in a thoughtful and deliberate way consistent with the legal definition of consent (as opposed to the statutory implications that people her age are mentally incapable of giving consent).
Agreed. Perhaps it's not the final piece to the puzzle but it is evidence.
If a man was not wear underwear wouldn't you consider that evidence?
What does progressive have to do with anything? People are nuts about "all things modern."
Thinking is thinking and this girl had actions and thinking involved in getting sex.
Maybe it was forced on her. So it's not the final piece but yes it is consideration.
Melvin Treebender wrote:
Agreed. Perhaps it's not the final piece to the puzzle but it is evidence.
If a man was not wear underwear wouldn't you consider that evidence?
No. Absolutely not. Could be laundry day. Could be he always dresses like that.
Harambe wrote:
Yellow Journalism wrote:
The thong was used as EVIDENCE for the NARRATIVE that the defense was trying to convince the jury of.
The defendant's defense was that it was consensual sex (the only possible defense besides denying that sex took place). Every little thing that even slightly suggests consensual sex was planned/possible that night can and should be used by the defense.
The reason this is a scandal is 1. A misleading title suggesting that was THE proof and 2. The public's aversion to the "what was she wearing" rape-apologist strawman.
Uhhh.... only if you're such a pearl clutcher that you think wearing lacy underwear means something special.
Your response would have been better used towards like 10 other posts. Did you read mine? It is one incredibly small detail in a grand narrative of a girl looking to hook up with a guy (and then regretting it, which is the defenses explanation for the accusal). Is it necessary? No. Is it significant? Only to pearl clutchers. Does it add to the narrative? Yes. So does it possibly help? Yes. So should they bring it up? Yes.
Too many people posting here appear to have no idea how trials work. The OP is all worked up as if the thong was the ONLY piece of evidence used to defend the charge. Of course it wasn't, and this is just argument from counsel.
If you want to have a rational conversation about the trial, try it from a more relevant angle: could what she was wearing, including her underwear, have been properly excluded from evidence and therefore not known to the jury?
Once evidence comes in, it can be the subject of argument. The jury can accept that argument or reject it.
Hmmmmmmmm wrote:
Once evidence comes in, it can be the subject of argument. The jury can accept that argument or reject it.
OP here. Good point. I think it’s disgusting and ridiculous that it was considered evidence to begin with (it opens up a whole other range of conversations, as evidenced by this thread) tho I understand WHY it was included.
Can’t stop laughing at the ignorant thinking that a girl would only wear a lacy thong if she was looking for sex that night. Hilarious.
Slankeyfletching wrote:
Victims of rape never are victims of rape a second time. ...
Besides being more stupid misogynistic victim-blaming, this also reveals extreme ignorance of human psychology, trauma, and all the many aspects of abuse and rape.
When you are so ignorant, try closing your mouth and doing some reading, or, if you know any actual females, listening.