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

That I was going to accompany them.

Underwear choice and sexual consent are conceptually and factually separate such that the one does not necessarily have anything to do with the other.

semenyagoat wrote:

Just Jack! wrote:

Uh... a girl was raped. And a lace thong was used as proof she was askin for it. But you’re calling the US dangerous? Sure bud.

yes the usa is dangerous. dangerous to get murdered, raped and so on. much more than europe. Its just a fact

The USA despiser ^ chimes in yet again. Boring.

Stable Genius wrote:

Ireland may have passed laws allowing it to join the modern barbarism (direct abortion) and ridiculousness (gay marriage), but Ireland is still a backwards ass shithole

Fixed it ^ for you.

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).

Maybe you should ask a sister, wife, girlfriend or even just a female friend about this.

Exactly ... wrote:

Darwin’s Crazy Aunt wrote:

This feels like a statutory rape case as opposed to violent sexual assault case. If that’s what this is, and the law implies that a girl her age is incapable of giving consent, then going out and buying underwear like that could be used as evidence that this girl was actively seeking/interested in sex. There’s clear forethought and intention.

ustooge wrote:

You stooge! Wearing a thong does not mean she was seeking sex. She probably thought they were comfortable or wanted to hide an underwear line. I can't believe people like you are allowed to vote.

Plus a 17 year old is under age, and can NOT give consent. The rape is still rape regardless.

And wearing a thong makes no difference. Rape is still rape.

Irish law says 17 is age of consent.

Wtfbbq wrote:

This rape trial happened in Ireland, not some backwards, repressed third world country.

It’s 2018. How the hell does this happen?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-46207304https://jezebel.com/irish-women-protest-use-of-teens-lacy-thong-as-evidence-1830439810

Since when has Ireland not been backwards and repressed???

Stanley got cut off wrote:

Is stupidity on behalf of women.

Women, if you want to be recognized as equals quit being so damn stupid

Do people like you go about your day thinking you’re more intelligent than most women in the world, and that they’re literally an inferior sex? I can’t imagine thinking that way honestly. Am I crazy for NOT believing that?

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).

You are very confused. Those examples you give are not ‘evidence of consent’ - the burden of proof is on the prosecution, who have to produce evidence that a crime was committed. Not that the victim had intent to have a crime committed against her.

Adversarial Angol-American legal systems don’t cope with tape cases as well as inquisitorial continental systems, mainly due to the defence led aggressive questioning of the victim. As opposed to judge-led neutral drawing out of evidence.

Worryingly, in your example above, you equate choice of underwear and fake id with buying condoms. You clearly haven’t read the case, as neither fake id nor condoms were possessed by the victim. Even if they were, a woman is still allowed not to consent to sex. Are you really incapable of understanding that a woman might carry condoms in her handbag in case she meets a guy she is into? It doesn’t mean she consents to have sexual with every guy she has a drink with! Fake Id is hardly a pre-cursor to sex! Underwear clothing can be for personal comfort, to avoid a VPL, all sets of reasons

I hope I never meet you on a dark night. Rape is rape. The man was found not guilty, not found innocent. I hope women remember his name and avoid being alone with him.

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).

You are joking, right? . . . Right?

OMFG! Please say you are joking!

Melvin Treebender 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).

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. Are you kidding? Seriously?

WTF is wrong with some of you folks. Someone's choice of underwear (or lack thereof) has something to do with their interest in having sex? Have any of you EVER gotten laid? You sound like a bunch of 12 year-olds gathered around a picture of a nude woman and bragging about your amazing knowledge of sex.

Seriously, are any of you folks serious with this stuff?

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.

Except it’s not evidence of consent. It’s inappropriate extrapolation of an unrelated act, and should have been struck down as inadmissible.

Choice of underwear cannot be extrapolated with ‘intention to have sex’. Women don’t think in that way. Rapey men do. I don’t think I’ve ever gone about with an ‘intention to have sex’ with a man I barely know. It depends on so many factors. You might kiss the man and he might be sweaty or his breath might smell, and you decide to end interaction there. Or he might become a bit rough or set off alarm bells with his behaviour. You can go off a man when you have chosen to have a variety of panties. Kissing a man does not suddenly equate to intent to jumping into bed with him, whatever panties you are wearing.

Darwin's Crazy Aunt wrote:

dwightarm wrote:

What is wrong with some of u dudes? ??

In case my handle didn't clue you in, I'm not a "dude."

It doesn't matter what a woman wears! It doesn't mean she's asking for it!

Appearance is rarely an act of coincidence, especially for women. We are conscientious creatures.

A woman could be naked and if she says NO, then it is rape.

Well I'll absolutely agree with this. But I'm wondering whether this was a question of "did she say no" rape or "was she intellectually capable of giving consent" rape. I'm not suggesting that this is a critical piece of evidence, but if this girl was looking to have sex her choice of clothing might reflect that, and mature clothing may be evidence of the maturity to give consent.

Just as a name on the internet isn’t relevant evidence of being male or female, choice of underwear isn’t evidence of wanting to have sex.

I’m sure I’m not alone in being female and having forgotten to bring enough panties somewhere with me, and very occasionally having gone out wearing mine under my clothing.

I have never gone out with this ‘intention to have sex’ thing you seem to have made up. Very few women think like that. You can be put iffmen so easily. I can imagine that being dragged by the neck to a dirty back alley by someone you barely know would put most women off sex. Whatever panties they had chosen to wear.

yawntown wrote:

Nah brah, just the once to your weak troll post.

I have a girl dog named GOTCHA. She is a fine B!tch

xcvxcvcx wrote:

Underwear choice and sexual consent are conceptually and factually separate such that the one does not necessarily have anything to do with the other.

We agree on this.

However, 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.

Tonight, I'm living in a fantasy, my own little nasty world. Tonight don't you want to come with me, do you think I'm a nasty girl.

This thread is vile, although not as vile as the original case.

They make lacy thongs for 9 years olds these days, in many shops in the UK and Ireland. Underwear correlates to nothing. Some people will only own that type of underwear, so I guess they want to be raped all of the time.

Many women have had sex when wearing cotton boyshorts, old pants, lacy thongs, anything. It's often what you grab out of a drawer to put on that day. It means nothing, and I'm shocked that people could even think that oh, lacy thong, she must've wanted sex! The mind boggles...

Maybe 50 years ago but not now.

A lot of people will only own that kind of underwear.

They might wear it to yoga, to university, to the library, to visit grandparents. Are they looking for sex then? Are they looking for sex if they're 10 and have bought one of those stupid child thong packs from Primark or similar shops?

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.

The whole thing just makes me sad. How that girl would feel with her underwear being brought up in court. How other cases have been handled. The people who were assaulted are incredibly brave to take it to court. They are brave to go through the examinations afterwards. Cases where their underwear is passed around in court for the jury to handle. It's abhorrent. I don't believe that should be allowed actually. Passing underwear around a jury, how humiliating.

How can pants mean consent?

I don't believe the underwear or what someone is wearing should even be brought into it.

So does wearing that mean you have less of a right to not consent?

Do we want to get into a situation where women are like oh no, I can't wear that because if I'm assaulted it will be used against me? When you can't wear things you like, that you find nice?

The age of consent in Ireland is 17 so age has nothing to do with this case. I don't believe the underwear should ever have been brought into it, and to say that they imply consent is nuts. The days of having a special pair of underwear or whatever for that are completely over. It means nothing.

Very good post. Everything you have said is spot on. I missed the guy who said women aren't raped twice. Horsesh!t.

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.

theJeff wrote:

We agree on this.

However, 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.

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