Remember the Duke LAX rape case?Follow

"Hey! What were you doing with a ****** in the first place?"

This is where you are missing the point. It IS a matter of consent--it simply means that for someone who is ALLEGEDLY a prostitute (and you've provided no actual proof that she WAS, merely insinuation about her sexual habits) consent has a price-tag attached, yes, but it STILL comes down to whether or not she consented.

Let's say I wanted to rent your computer, since that's what you admit to whoring yourself out on. I offer you a fee, you accept the fee. I then can claim your computer under the agreed-upon parameters that were negotiated with the fee. If you change your mind and give me back my fee, I can no longer have your computer and taking it is a crime. The fact that you were willing to rent it to me in the first place has no bearing on the matter--you changed your mind and either didn't accept or returned my money, ergo the computer is not mine and no amount of legal double-talk will excuse my using it without your permission.

For a hooker, willingly accepting a "fee" equates to consent to have sex, yes--however, she can still rescind that agreement, return the money, and the guys are entitled to squat when she does so, and having sex with her after she does so is a crime. It doesn't matter if she was willing to sell it to them previously--if she changes her mind and says no, it's rape.

There is no "muddy water" here except in the minds of someone who wants a reason to excuse a rape because the woman somehow "had it coming" by virtue of not being the kind of person of whom they approve. If there's consent, it's not rape. If there's not consent, it is. Even if that consent has a price tag attached, IT'S STILL RAPE IF THAT CONSENT IS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN. It's that clear-cut. I highly suspect that if she had been a white stripper, you 1) wouldn't be so insistent that she was also a prostitute, and 2) would be more willing to acknowledge that regardless of her profession, it IS still rape if she is forced to have sex against her will.

And yet here you are bemoaning the destroyed futures of these poor innocent lambs, such as the fact that one of them has lost the job that had been offered to him.

Come on, you can't have it both ways--either they deserve to be punished for their actions or they don't, which is it? Is the punishment for the fact that they behaved badly somehow less valid because the knowledge of that bad behavior is brought to light due to a woman of (allegedly) less than sterling character?

Yeah, but then you just get a bunch of guys drooling "MMMMM, bottom fu[Aqua][/Aqua]cking.... MMMMMMM."

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



Ahhh, but then we set the stage for an even more slippery slope!

Rape is rape. I didn’t argue that before and I won’t now.

Of course we can’t decry this woman for her nature of being just that, a woman. Of course we can’t condemn her for doing her job of an “exotic dancer.” OF COURSE WE CAN’T disparage against her for knowing she was previously turning tricks for other men earlier that week, went to a party with no hired muscle to protect her with a bunch of drunk sports players all the while having another dancer friend swear there was no rape, and a security guard correspond this same story.

But rape is rape, bottom fu[/red]cking line.



Great idea when placed in a moral setting.
Pure sh[red]it when placed in a legal setting. Congratulations, you just opened the way for every gold digging ***** (and there are A LOT of you out there) to finally strike it rich. Let’s use millions of years of evolution against that which has a *****.......Not bad, actually. It doesn’t take much to crumble a mans’ control and make him cave for dat golden pus[/red]sy (though I imagine hers’ to be abit tarnished to the tune of bronze)

Any woman can simply say “NO!” after enticing a man, taking him to a secluded spot, engaging in intercourse with him for a period of time, then deciding she can successfully employ her plan to cry rape and get way more money\attention\power from destroying these individuals’ lives. The sad part is, even if he does comply, it doesn't matter. The plan was successful, time to sue the collage and the dorm security and the state, and the players and their families and ..... well, you get the point.

Hell, why not play that lovely race card and get NATIONAL attention along with it? Oh, that’s right! She did.


This case…. And the facts presented thus far… lead me to believe there was no alleged “rape.”

But rape is rape, bottom fu[red]cking line.

Fu[/red]ck, all women have to do these day is pretend they say no, in their own fu[red]cking heads and they automatically get m0ni3$!1!

This bi[/red]tch is so going to fu[red]ck any other woman out there who really was raped with all this bullsh[/red]it. I would think you would be all over her sh[red]it for helping to set new precedence after they find out she’s nothing but a ***** in this case. Then we get new rape case constraints more to the tune of Gbaji’s ideals on the subject.

Great job femanazis. Pat yourselves on your hairy backs and get Rosie O'Donnell on board for the book drive.

Edited, Jun 22nd 2006 at 11:01am EDT by Molish

Edited, Jul 4th 2006 at 4:02pm EDT by Molish

Edited, Jul 4th 2006 at 4:04pm EDT by Molish

Edited, Jul 4th 2006 at 4:04pm EDT by Molish

Edited, Jul 4th 2006 at 4:04pm EDT by Molish

Edited, Jul 4th 2006 at 4:05pm EDT by Molish

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



Completely agree, as I stated in the previous post.




Never said every women would do this.



Edited, Jun 22nd 2006 at 11:01am EDT by Molish

In other words no team winkies touched ***** hoo-has.

edited to add *** or mouth either.

Edited, Jun 21st 2006 at 8:16pm EDT by AngryUndead

Just an observation. In any other area of law, we'd call that "presumption of innocence". What Totem's trying to point out (and which I've tried unsuccessfully on many occasions), is that while there's certainly some absolute "truth" of whether a rape occured or not, our legal system requires proof of a crime in order to convict someone. Within a legal context, it's not what something is but what can be proven.


In a contrived example where we know the absolute "truth" of the situation, we can always correctly label something. We can declare with absolute certainty that if she says stop and he doesn't stop, then that is rape. However, that type of example becomes useless in a legal sense, because no one other then the two people involved will ever know for sure what exactly happened. Barring some evidence other then their own testimony, there is absolutely no way for anyone else to know for sure. And since our legal system is based on a trial by jury system, it's what can be proven to other people that matters.

And since the accused is given the presumption of innocence in our legal system, it is up to the accusor to provide "proof" beyond her own claims.


The problem is that everyone seems to argue using the contrived examples, which makes the issue seem "clear" to them, but that clarity disappears once we get into a real case with real people and real evidence (or lack). For example, in Smash's contrived case of a women who's paid to have sex with 1000 men, but says no on the last guy, we can say it's rape only because Smash has contrived the situation such that we know she said no on the last guy. If we were a jury, and the only evidence presented to us was the woman's claim that she willingly had sex with 999 guys, but then didn't want to do that last one, and the last guy says that she didn't say no, what would you do? Assume the woman is telling the truth? Assume the man is? And can you honestly say that in this case any jury would find the woman's claim to have merit? Once we remove the absolute knowledge from the situation we can't say a rape has occured anymore.

Totem's point is just that a jury is far less likely to believe that the woman in that case was raped, then if those other 999 willing sexual acts had not occured... Which is a reasonable and logical point to make.

"Let's say I wanted to rent your computer, since that's what you admit to whoring yourself out on. I offer you a fee, you accept the fee. I then can claim your computer under the agreed-upon parameters that were negotiated with the fee. If you change your mind and give me back my fee, I can no longer have your computer and taking it is a crime." --Ambrya

If such a transaction were to take place I'd say it'd be a safe bet we'd be exchanging CSTDs. The good news is that Norton Disk Doctor can give you a shot that clears it all up in a day or so.

Totem

If the case is thrown out because of lack of evidence, the defendants should file a complaint with the state Bar for malicious prosecution. If there is enough evidence, the case should go to trail and stand on the merit of the evidence. It's pretty much as simple as that. Doesn't matter if she is a ***** or not.

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

Quote:

I don't know what you mean by "society shouldn't make such hasty assumptions". Isn't automatically assuming that the woman is lying a pretty quick assumption? You're advocating stripping away women's ability to properly allege a crime as written in law based on an assumption.

Yer fu[red]cking kidding me, right? Do I have to spell out the entire context of my fu[/red]cking posts for you tards?

Molish wrote:

A prime example of which I have become with previous posts. But playing devils’ advocate is so much more fun.

Lern 2 re@d KKthXby3!1!eleven!1

Quote:

Here's the thing. See, it's a commonly held belief that women lie about rape with some frequency in order to accomplish some underhanded motive (getting money, attention, blah blah). Government studies, however, found that false rape accusations occured at the exact same rate as false accusations for any other crime.

Here’s the thing, your a fu[red]ck job. If I was actually arguing for EVERY WOMAN IN THE WORLD DOING THIS, you might have a point. However...



Lern 2 re@d KKthXby3!1!eleven!1again



What fu[/red]ck world to you live in? Sure, everythign is fine a dandy IF he gets his good name cleared (even then, thats not always true). What the fu[red]ck do you think happends before that?



Lern 2 re@d KKthXby3!1!eleven!1again again

He is tarred and feathered before his very town\society\friends\family. They judge before it ever goes to court. He loses jobs, is put in jail, is demonized by his peers, and generally a guilty until proven innocent is cast upon him the entire length of the trial, just like these guys.

Seriously, you’re trolling, right? No one can be this stupid, right?
I can’t spoon fed you any more conclusions. Try actually READING my fu[red][/red]cking posts next time instead of pretending you know what I’m saying.


Edited, Jun 22nd 2006 at 11:00am EDT by Molish

Are you somehow under the impression that sensationalism and the mob mentality are new?