Ridiculous: Teen’s lacy thong used as evidence for consent

theJeff wrote:

dingle wrote:

There are evidentiary standards and the use of such evidence could be suppressed if it has no bearing on the case.

I am sure that is true. That wouldn't keep someone who was falsely accused from trying, though, would it? There seem to be a lot of people on this thread caught up in the debate over whether or not your attire can convey consent. Of course it can't. I don't believe that is the issue, though.

It wouldn't stop them from trying, but in this case it did not stop them from doing. That's why people are angered.

This ^

If you've seen Cape Fear, you know what happens if you don't zealously defend your client that's been accused of rape

If the girl only owns one type of underwear, then the prosecutor can raise that as rebuttal evidence. Just because evidence is admitted in court does not mean that the jury needs to draw any conclusions from it.

Same with the silly 9 year old example. Lots of evidence is put forth in court, that doesn’t mean the jury needs to believe the evidence or the implications that fall from it. In fact it is precisely the juries job to describe how much weight to apply to the evidence.

Then you go on and make the same stupid mistake of acting like anyone in this thread has said anything close to “a thong means she MUST have wanted sex”. Nobody has said anything about MUST, that would be stupid.

Then you go on and act like people saying that her choice of underwear somehow means she has less of a right not to consent, nobody is saying that.

When you have to completely misrepresent and fabricate the other sides argument to make a rebuttal, that doesn’t speak highly to the quality of your argument.

theJeff wrote:

That being said, imagine for a minute that you are a male. If you had been falsely accused of rape after consensual sex, and it was completely your word against hers, I imagine you would suddenly think that sexy underwear, possession of condoms / lubrication, etc on her part would become quite relevant.

Or, not a perfect analogy, but: imagine you have been raped, and the man is claiming that it was consensual. If you learn that the man has been accused of sexual assault before... or if you learn ANYTHING that may call his character into question... would you bring it up in court, even if those issues had no direct effect on the event itself? I think it would be foolish not to.

If I was male and falsely accused of rape would I use anything to try to get the case dropped? Possibly. Does that mean I should be allowed to? No. Does that mean that anything should be allowed to be brought up in any rape case? Sexual history, what someone's wearing? No - because a virgin can be raped as can a woman who has had sex with 100 people. Someone wearing a hijab can be raped as can someone in a bikini. A man can be raped wearing overalls versus wearing swimming trunks. Would a man's sexual history matter if he is raped by another man? So those factors are irrelevant. They do not correlate with consent. It's not about my personal wants - it's about whether it should be allowed in court.

If people believe her underwear had a bearing on consent, that's where a big part of the problem lies.

Do you not understand probability? Just because two things could happen doesn’t mean they are equally likely to happen.

Motorcycles aren’t anymore dangerous than sitting at home. I could die while sitting at home and I could die racing a motorcycle through city traffic at 200mph. Thus, both are equally likely to lead to death.

theJeff wrote:

That being said, imagine for a minute that you are a male. If you had been falsely accused of rape after consensual sex, and it was completely your word against hers, I imagine you would suddenly think that sexy underwear, possession of condoms / lubrication, etc on her part would become quite relevant.

If I was falsely accused of rape after consensual sex, I would certainly think the condoms and lubrication are relevant. The underwear? No. Honestly, it wouldn’t even cross my mind. This thread has been eye-opening to me regarding how many people equate thongs with wanting sex.

I'm not misrepresenting anything. The fact that underwear is brought into court is the problem. People are saying that her underwear has something to do with whether it's rape or not - that's the whole reason underwear was brought in as evidence.

My question is why is her underwear allowed to be brought into court as evidence?

There are ways to make points without calling someone stupid, calling their arguments silly, as you have done and generally trying to patronise and being dismissive. If you can't distinguish between someone talking generally about a case and talking about what's being discussed in a thread then there is an issue.

Why should her underwear be allowed as evidence in court?

The 'sexy' underwear was introduced to try to show she consented. So people are saying that her type of underwear has an influence on whether she consented or not. They're saying she's wearing a thong, so she wanted sex, i.e. she consented. That's the entire point. My examples were used to show that underwear is irrelevant - a lot of people would wear those pants without wanting sex.

WTF^n wrote:

track chick wrote:

Secondly, whoever posted about once someone is raped, it never happens again. Do some research in the area of sexual assault. If someone is abused as a child, it increases the likelihood they're raped. You're essentially saying there, that people can prevent their own rapes. Men are raped too. I don't see many people going around saying that about them, thankfully. I know people who have been raped more than once (by different individuals). Would a man's underwear be brought into it if he was raped in an alley? I hope not.

.

This ^

If I did any amount of "research" at all I would be better informed than you and that wouldn't make for good conversation.

Child abuse and rape are not the same thing even if they share a correlation, so how that's relevant you might explain. Lumping children who live in abusive households in with adult rape victims is a real disservice to those children. The children are born into that situation, they aren't mislead or unheedingly led to it.

Yes, people can prevent their own rapes, the same way they can prevent gum disease, premature wrinkles, premature death, broken bones, sexually transmitted diseases. It only requires awareness and effort.

Men do get raped. I once took an adult woman out for drinks, we hit it off. So this "adult women" who lived downstairs of her parents house took me back to her place for some impromptu loving. Next morning everything is fine we part ways. I get a call from her later that evening saying she felt like she had been raped. Her claim was that because she had drank alcohol her judgment was impaired and therefore could not consent. In reality she was ashamed and looking for someone to blame. After I mentioned I had had more drinks than her and that we had ended up at her place suggesting that of the two it was much more likely that I was raped, she quit harassing me.

The person you know who has been raped twice, at least it was two different people. If you get raped by the same person twice shame on you I believe.

Any victim of anything who doesn't take any accountability, just isn't living in reality.

Yes, I understand probability. I studied statistics as a postgraduate.

What's with all of the personal digs?

Salvoslripe wrote:

Yes, people can prevent their own rapes, the same way they can prevent gum disease, premature wrinkles, premature death, broken bones, sexually transmitted diseases. It only requires awareness and effort.

The person you know who has been raped twice, at least it was two different people. If you get raped by the same person twice shame on you I believe.

Any victim of anything who doesn't take any accountability, just isn't living in reality.

That says it all, doesn't it? People can prevent their own rapes - it only requires awareness and effort? I'd like to see you say that to any men, women or children who have been raped... maybe victims of war... child abuse, victims of violence etc.

Maybe what would be better is if people simply stopped raping. Funny how your focus isn't on that? You know, the people who actually commit the rape?

You are misrepresenting the other sides argument. Where has anyone argued that she has less of a right to consent because she was wearing a thong?

Also note, I never called you stupid in this post. I called your mistakes stupid and the quality of your argument poor, but you are not your mistakes or arguments. I called the mistakes stupid and the quality of your argument poor because it was.

track chick wrote:

Free_the_thigh wrote:

Do you not understand probability? Just because two things could happen doesn’t mean they are equally likely to happen.

Motorcycles aren’t anymore dangerous than sitting at home. I could die while sitting at home and I could die racing a motorcycle through city traffic at 200mph. Thus, both are equally likely to lead to death.

Yes, I understand probability. I studied statistics as a postgraduate.

What's with all of the personal digs?

Then you should know better than to fall prey to such a simple statistical fallacy.

Yes, a virgin and a person who has in the past consented to a 100 one night stands could both consent to a one night stand on any given night, but it is far less likely that a virgin would choose to consent to a one night stand.

Im glad you brought that up. Victims who have escaped their abusers all share a universal sentiment, they are tortured by what singled them out as potential victims to their abusers and by the fact that they suffered for much longer than they needed. Many of them do admit that if they had just done this or that it would have worked out differently.

I try to focus on what is realistic. People giving up rape isn't. Teaching people to take accountability isn't much better

Free_the_thigh wrote:

You are misrepresenting the other sides argument. Where has anyone argued that she has less of a right to consent because she was wearing a thong?

I never said that anyone has argued that she has less of a right to consent because she was wearing a thong. So ironically, you are completely misrepresenting me and putting words in my mouth that weren't even said - you are doing what you falsely accused me of doing. I said "So does wearing that mean you have less of a right to not consent?" - asking a question.

As it happens, the correct answer to your question is in court. The defense barrister used it as part of their argument. They stated that the underwear implied consent. So my question was, if that's the case, does wearing it mean you have less of a right to not consent.

If all of these factors make such a difference to people, she was a virgin, and it was in a muddy alley. The fact that a young girl was raped is more horrifying than any of these discussions around it, and I think all of us would do well not to forget that.

Please don't say that I've said things I haven't. It completely weakens your argument, but I won't lower myself to calling it stupid. It's funny that you make these accusations - silly, stupid, misrepresentation - when you're the person doing the misrepresentation yourself.

In a way all of this doesn't matter - I'm pretty sure that soon enough, sexual history and clothing won't be permissible to be used as evidence in court. Times are changing, and they will change fast.

You appear to equally sick in the head and stupid. Sorry, just calling it like it is.

I absolutely love this line; "Yes, people can prevent their own rapes, the same way they can prevent gum disease, premature wrinkles, premature death, broken bones, sexually transmitted diseases. It only requires awareness and effort. "

That's right, and people can prevent their own murders, being victims of burglary, . . . heck, people can prevent ALL crimes and ALL diseases. It only requires awareness and effort.

In fact, while we are at it, let's just declare that there is no such thing as a crime - only pathetic victims who lack awareness and effort.

How in the world did the defense team get a hold of the victim's underwear anyway? I'm honestly curious. It seems weird.

Seezyslript wrote:

Im glad you brought that up. Victims who have escaped their abusers all share a universal sentiment, they are tortured by what singled them out as potential victims to their abusers and by the fact that they suffered for much longer than they needed. Many of them do admit that if they had just done this or that it would have worked out differently.

I try to focus on what is realistic. People giving up rape isn't. Teaching people to take accountability isn't much better

Maybe in the past, but not so much now. People know that victim-blaming is completely unacceptable and outdated - that the rapist or abuser is the person at fault, and always will be. Attitudes are completely changing, and I doubt many victims truly believe that now (unless they were taught that by their abuser, in which case they work with professionals to change that belief), same with the general public. They blame the rapist and the abuser, not the victim. In fact, I'd say there's been a huge shift in public attitude recently, and it will continue to shift.

General Howe wrote:

How in the world did the defense team get a hold of the victim's underwear anyway? I'm honestly curious. It seems weird.

Probably the police report.