Remember the Duke LAX rape case?Follow

All things considered, I still think the idea of throwing out a case because you think "all strippers are also prostitutes" is pretty fuc[Aqua][/Aqua]king stupid. So I don't know what your point is.

There's a reason that we have trials to sort these things out.

Backatcha, Eske. You somehow missed what should be obvious to even the reader of primers. For your sake and your poor comprehension skills, I said exotic dancers with no muscle, no back up. Comprende, muchacho? Your affection for strippers notwithstanding, hence, I suspect, your quick rise to their collective defense, is not an issue-- although a case can certainly be made that selling your body for viewing is just a small step removed from allowing copius ***** fluid from filling your "exotic dancing" mother's quim. I think you'd agree in a moment of perfect and brutal honesty, that white stuff running down her leg is not the product of a nasty yeast infection, despite what you've been telling yourself.

Totem

The other half of that argument was that, even if she was a prostitute, that does not give anyone the right to rape her.

Half?

That was the whole argument.

Prude.

"Try actually READING my fu[red][/red]cking posts next time" - Polish disclaimer (It's Bodhi approved!)








Duh...



EDIT: Didn't nestle the quote properly

Edited, Jun 22nd 2006 at 11:02am EDT by Molish

Haha, you don't watch Bill O'Rielly or Nancy Grace now do you? These boys have been put through hell with thier names in the media, faces exposed to the public. Meanwhile, this girl has had her name protected, face hidden even though it seems more and more apparent there is not enough evidence to even give these boys a slap on the wrist.

It would seem that they will not be found guilty of anything. I hope so much that they press charges right back and sully this girls name as she has done to each of these men.

Though of course, if they are found guilty and thier is evidence of that, then may justice come swiftly to these men.

Cart before the horse, there, grandpa.

Jesus Christ. I fu[Aquamarine][/Aquamarine]cking hope it's not normal (no pun intended)! Who the hell teaches these kids how to have sex? Where's the finesse? It's sad, I tell you.

I find it interesting that you think one has to do with the other. Each argument stands alone on its own merit. I've never stated that I think it's wrong to take change out of a homeless man's cup to pay for my paper, or to tongue-kiss a six-year-old, but you can safely assume that yes, even though never previously stated by me, I think both are teh bad bad wrongness.

First off, the ****** bruises to some extent no matter how gentle the lovemaking is. That is the product of bumpin' uglies.

Second, each argument does stand on their own merits. On that I agree with you, FleaJo1. However, the OP was about the flimsiness of the entire case, of which it appears to be an even more untenable case to try as each detail comes to light. Rather than comment on that-- which is the focus of the Newsweek article --FleaJo2 made note of the stripper's rights, to wit rape is still wrong. It was my contention that by even bringing that up it could conceivably show that regardless of the preponderance of the evidence out there, the stripper is being given the benefit of the doubt, when as the accused, it's the Duke lacrosse players who should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Particularly due to what we know about strippers who go into gigs without muscle, ie they are not strippers, but rather whores. Whores generally don't get raped, they are being paid to take whatever abuse their client has the sexual needs to fulfill. In other words, gentle tender lovin' isn't what paid sex is about. Rather, it's about doing whatever the john has in mind, which I suspect is plain ol' jackhammer ********. No foreplay, no preliminaries.

Based on all of the above, considering she took cash from the LAX players, had there been sex involved (which increasingly looks very doubtful) one can assume correctly it wouldn't have been rape but a bought and paid-for sexual union. That's prostitution, not rape.

Totem

Well... yeah.

Typical logic is that, right or wrong, the plantiff is at least sincere in their belief that a crime was committed against them. If it proves otherwise, you can take them to task for false reports, perjury, etc but, if the base assumption was that the plantiff was always lying, we wouldn't get far in court.

No one is arguing that. I never said the plantiff was correct, just that they are sincere. If you started by assuming the plantiff was lying, you wouldn't need a court case now would you?

QFMFTBs