Crosswords1 min ago
This Is Not Consent!
I am shocked and disgusted by this especially as a woman did it to another woman.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by woofgang. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I don't believe anyone really wants to deny a lawyer should use any legal means to help their client; surely the issue is as to why it is admissable to the court, or makes any difference. It'd be a different matter if that was all she chose to wear at the time. It's the legal system that's questionable at present.
Maybe in the Irish courts, legally permissible, but ethically abhorrent and morally repugnant. Even if allowed the methodology was inhumane, the thong could have been presented in an evidence bag or held by a court official.
Of course a defendant has the right to a robust defence that is not in doubt. But I agree with what the majority believe, what a person wears can at no time imply consent.
There used to be a t shirt design that said even if I scream no I mean yes. Even that does not mean you consent to rape.
Of course a defendant has the right to a robust defence that is not in doubt. But I agree with what the majority believe, what a person wears can at no time imply consent.
There used to be a t shirt design that said even if I scream no I mean yes. Even that does not mean you consent to rape.
Jim........I have read all the posts above and i wouldn't want to bore your...yet again.
In a nutshell and in my opinion, a defendant should have the best defense as possible, within the confines of the law.......and parading the underwear is admissible and MAY be crucial in a case of rape.
Why should sexy, silky, minute knickers be an incentive to intercourse and even rape.
I don't know, but some men and some women deem them so.
As you well know the sexual stimulus is a complex emotion.
I know this is not a full and exhaustive explanation, but although the points that i could go on to enlarge have been discussed above.
Women's underwear may well be relevant in cases of rape in my opinion.........or may not.
In a nutshell and in my opinion, a defendant should have the best defense as possible, within the confines of the law.......and parading the underwear is admissible and MAY be crucial in a case of rape.
Why should sexy, silky, minute knickers be an incentive to intercourse and even rape.
I don't know, but some men and some women deem them so.
As you well know the sexual stimulus is a complex emotion.
I know this is not a full and exhaustive explanation, but although the points that i could go on to enlarge have been discussed above.
Women's underwear may well be relevant in cases of rape in my opinion.........or may not.
Even while that may be true, it's not a legal defence. Rape requires to prove sex without consent, and without reasonable belief of consent. Even if, as you say, the man in question might have believed the woman was "up for it" because of her choice of underwear, it is no longer reasonable to believe that.
While, indeed, the defendant is entitled to defend themselves, it stands to reason that their defence should and must be focused on addressing what's needed to prove an offence. The woman's choice of underwear has no bearing on this, and therefore certainly should have been inadmissible as evidence for the defence.
While, indeed, the defendant is entitled to defend themselves, it stands to reason that their defence should and must be focused on addressing what's needed to prove an offence. The woman's choice of underwear has no bearing on this, and therefore certainly should have been inadmissible as evidence for the defence.
verdict unacceptible. The law is an ass!
https:/
https:/
Sad sqad isnt it!!
Therefore such men should be taught a lesson & jailed!!
Showing them as tangiable evidence in a court room does not send a good message in my opinion, if the judge even considers them thats an issue for me.
When i was a touch younger and slimmer i dressed pretty provocatively!!! No regrets.... i wasnt always on the hunt for sex!!
I felt good, probobly enjoyed the attention if im honest!!!
NOT NOW lol xx
Therefore such men should be taught a lesson & jailed!!
Showing them as tangiable evidence in a court room does not send a good message in my opinion, if the judge even considers them thats an issue for me.
When i was a touch younger and slimmer i dressed pretty provocatively!!! No regrets.... i wasnt always on the hunt for sex!!
I felt good, probobly enjoyed the attention if im honest!!!
NOT NOW lol xx
Tinkerbell,yes it is sad, but that is the way it is with some men and they are taught a lesson if found guilty........they are jailed, for a very long time.
It would be nice if some men could control their hormones and addiction to unwanted sexual intercourse, but life is not like that and never will be.
i would like to be a tall, dark, handsome internationally renowned brain surgeon, but that will never be.
It would be nice if some men could control their hormones and addiction to unwanted sexual intercourse, but life is not like that and never will be.
i would like to be a tall, dark, handsome internationally renowned brain surgeon, but that will never be.
Sqad - // It would be nice if some men could control their hormones and addiction to unwanted sexual intercourse, but life is not like that and never will be. //
That is sadly true, but we could start to lower the unacceptably high numbers of men who do think that a woman's choice of clothing is a green light for sexual assault if we didn't grant evidence like this into a court case as part of the defence's evidence.
That sends an utterly unacceptable message to the court, the defendant, and society as a whole, and that cannot be right.
That is sadly true, but we could start to lower the unacceptably high numbers of men who do think that a woman's choice of clothing is a green light for sexual assault if we didn't grant evidence like this into a court case as part of the defence's evidence.
That sends an utterly unacceptable message to the court, the defendant, and society as a whole, and that cannot be right.
Interestingly, if the victim had worn no underwear at all, the defence would doubtless have been allowed to use this as an issue in its evidence, but at least the victim would have been spared the ordeal of displaying her private parts in open court.
At least I hope so - given the law's apparent stance on this evidence, there is no guarantee of that faint hope of dignity being upheld!!!
At least I hope so - given the law's apparent stance on this evidence, there is no guarantee of that faint hope of dignity being upheld!!!
One point - I am not going to get involved with the debate over characterisation., from the panties.
Assuming there were no indications of rape, witnesses to abduction, drunken behaviour, bruises on the victim etc etc then it is his word against hers whether it is consensual sex or rape.
One of the people is lying (or misinterprets) and the other is telling the truth, probably! Any judge and jury must now weigh up which is which.
Assuming there are no bruises to indicate force (I know not necessarily the case, but these would be more likely with rape) then if the male can describe her panties and these were not torn, then there is a possibility that she was prepared to go so far and then changed her mind (rape) but a good chance that she was parading in her underwear in front of him, or they had consensual sex.
If there are no bruises then consensual sex is more likely and if there are bruises or signs of a struggle rape is more likely.
Very simplistic and not necessarily true......so please don't argue against it, giving all sorts of examples where this is not true.
I am well aware of that!
The problem is a jury have got to determine who is telling the truth, if they suspect that there is a situation where the lady was down to her underwear, willingly, then the strength of the argument of consensual sex cannot be ignored, even though it might not be the case.
The jurors will also look at character. How both parties dress will be a factor, whether accurate or not, as will the build of the man and general demeanour of both, whether they have tattoos and Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all!
Assuming there were no indications of rape, witnesses to abduction, drunken behaviour, bruises on the victim etc etc then it is his word against hers whether it is consensual sex or rape.
One of the people is lying (or misinterprets) and the other is telling the truth, probably! Any judge and jury must now weigh up which is which.
Assuming there are no bruises to indicate force (I know not necessarily the case, but these would be more likely with rape) then if the male can describe her panties and these were not torn, then there is a possibility that she was prepared to go so far and then changed her mind (rape) but a good chance that she was parading in her underwear in front of him, or they had consensual sex.
If there are no bruises then consensual sex is more likely and if there are bruises or signs of a struggle rape is more likely.
Very simplistic and not necessarily true......so please don't argue against it, giving all sorts of examples where this is not true.
I am well aware of that!
The problem is a jury have got to determine who is telling the truth, if they suspect that there is a situation where the lady was down to her underwear, willingly, then the strength of the argument of consensual sex cannot be ignored, even though it might not be the case.
The jurors will also look at character. How both parties dress will be a factor, whether accurate or not, as will the build of the man and general demeanour of both, whether they have tattoos and Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all!
