track chick wrote:
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.