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

When a woman falsely accuses you of rape, you're not going to have verifiable evidence that she said yes or no. That's why you have to bring up other evidence to make your case.

stick with the case wrote:

I bet you are ugly wrote:

So if a 13 year old girl is wearing a thong in your mind that is a useful piece of information to determine if she’s looking for sex and mature enough to consent to sex?

She was 17.

Was her argument. So, at what age does a girls underwear become useful to determine if she’s mature enough to consent to sex? It’s only relevant if she’s 17? Think it through, idiot.

TheRunningTroll wrote:

Semenyagoat wrote:

Why are people thinking american laws apply in ireland? Luckily they dont. Would Not want to live in a dangerous country Like the usa

In the United States women have the right to carry a gun (unless they are a felon, etc) which would level the playing field to stop a would he rapist regardless of how much bigger or stronger he is. Safety is not guaranteed anywhere but the right to protect yourself in the US is.

When someone is close enough and big enough to physically overpower you, a gun will only give them an extra tool to overpower you as you try to get it out and he takes it. Maybe when they are 20 feet away and scream "I'm going to rape you!", it is would be a useful tool to avoid it. Once in hand to hand range, a gun is virtually useless.

Hardloper wrote:

You should definitely shout platitudes at people and maximize outrage without knowing any relevant details about the case. That always turns out well

Well, brains weren't always my strong point, so I guess I have that going for me.

tristate wrote:

Darwin’s Crazy Aunt wrote:

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).

Darwin,

Are you sane? There is absolutely NO reason acceptable for rape. None.

She could carry a condom, and be wearing no underwear, and there still would be no reason for rape. None.

As someone who is siding with the girl on this one, I would like to point out that you misread this post. He didn't say that carrying condoms / wearing lacy underwear is an excuse to rape someone. He is saying it could be evidence that the sex was consensual; ie that she had prepared for it ahead of time.

NONE of that proves or disproves rape; she could absolutely not have given consent while in possession of these items. Just making sure you are arguing the right point :-)

Think it through wrote:

stick with the case wrote:

She was 17.

Was her argument. So, at what age does a girls underwear become useful to determine if she’s mature enough to consent to sex? It’s only relevant if she’s 17? Think it through, idiot.

How, then, do we live together in this world of differing ideas? For starters, let’s agree that the ideas are fair game. If you think my idea is awful, you should say as much. But there is a difference between attacking an idea and attacking the person behind that idea. Labeling someone as an “-ist” who believes in an “-ism” because of the person’s policy preference is just a shortcut to playground-style name-calling, cloaked in political terminology. It’s also generally a good indication that the attacker doesn’t have a solid argument and needs a way to end debate before it has even begun. -Dan Crenshaw

Think it through wrote:

stick with the case wrote:

She was 17.

Was her argument. So, at what age does a girls underwear become useful to determine if she’s mature enough to consent to sex? It’s only relevant if she’s 17? Think it through, idiot.

It's not relevant for a 13-year-old, because she was 17. Not 13. Stay on topic.

Free_the_thigh wrote:

The underwear was not raised to argue the law, it was raised to argue the factual matter of whether or not she did in fact say "no". As no one in the jury was there that night and they have one person saying she said "no" and one person saying she said "yes", the jury needs to look at other extrinsic evidence to attempt to determine whether or not they have a reasonable doubt that she did in fact consent.

Extrinsic evidence such as arriving at someone's house clad in s&m gear is relevant to the jury being able to determine the factual matter of what happened that night.

I see your point. I think we just disagree on the significance of what a woman wearing a lacy thong represents.

Wearing underwear that a majority of teenage + women wear is evidence of nothing.

The only people who see this as interesting are old boomers who are scandalized by anything less than boxer shorts on women.

Just Jack! wrote:

Free_the_thigh wrote:

The underwear was not raised to argue the law, it was raised to argue the factual matter of whether or not she did in fact say "no". As no one in the jury was there that night and they have one person saying she said "no" and one person saying she said "yes", the jury needs to look at other extrinsic evidence to attempt to determine whether or not they have a reasonable doubt that she did in fact consent.

Extrinsic evidence such as arriving at someone's house clad in s&m gear is relevant to the jury being able to determine the factual matter of what happened that night.

I see your point. I think we just disagree on the significance of what a woman wearing a lacy thong represents.

The significance is minimal, but not non-existent as people in this thread are suggesting.

Darwin’s Crazy Aunt wrote:

There’s clear forethought and intention.

I planned to buy a cup of coffee on my way to class this morning. I threw a couple of dollars in my wallet before leaving home, and I picked a walking route that took me past my favorite coffee shop. But then I decided I didn’t actually want a cup of coffee, and I walked on by the coffee shop and went to class. By your logic, I should have been committed to the transaction the moment I showed intent to buy coffee, and the guy working at the coffee shop would have been within his rights to force a cup of coffee on me and demand my money.

Same goes for sex. A person could spend all day planning on having sex, but they still have every right to decline it in the moment.

Nobody is arguing that the girl did not have every right to decline.

"I wear tight clothing, high heel shoes; it doesn't mean that I'm a prostitute." En Vouge

You can’t argue that intent is a relevant factor without assuming that she does not have every right to decline. If she has every right to decline, the only relevant factor is whether she did in fact decline or consent. Intent doesn’t matter at all.

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.

that’s not how it works wrote:

Free_the_thigh wrote:

Nobody is arguing that the girl did not have every right to decline.

You can’t argue that intent is a relevant factor without assuming that she does not have every right to decline. If she has every right to decline, the only relevant factor is whether she did in fact decline or consent. Intent doesn’t matter at all.

I can argue that intent is a relevant factor as it goes to prove or disprove a material fact in issue.

The material fact in issue is whether or not she consented. That is the key factual element of the case. If the prosecutor can convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the complaint did not consent, regardless of intention beforehand, then the accused will be found guilty.

In order to prove or raise a reasonable doubt about the material fact in issue, you introduce and try to establish other facts that make it more or less likely that the material fact in issue occurred.

For example in this case, the fact that the sex occurred in a muddy alley is not a fact that needs to be proved. Women can consent to sex in a muddy alley and can not consent to sex in a muddy alley. The fact that it occurred in a muddy alley is still a relevant factor though as it makes it less likely that she would have consented.

Would you argue that the prosecutor should not be allowed to raise the evidence that the alleged incident occurred in an alley, or that someone saw him choking her as the only relevant factor is if she consented?

that’s not how it works wrote:

Free_the_thigh wrote:

Nobody is arguing that the girl did not have every right to decline.

You can’t argue that intent is a relevant factor without assuming that she does not have every right to decline. If she has every right to decline, the only relevant factor is whether she did in fact decline or consent. Intent doesn’t matter at all.

On a he-said-she-said case, you're never going to determine whether she declined or not. That's why you have to rely on circumstantial evidence.

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.

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"