well, i don't like the term "slut" because i think it perjorifies (?) female sexual activity in general, sooo let me try to figure out another way to say it.
the specific and controversial "violations" of rape-shield that are being argued about in this case are (as i said before) not necessarily confined to questions about her butt-sex.
the bottom line for this case is you have two people who are EQUALLY CREDIBLE unless you show otherwise. you CANNOT convict someone on a 50-50 chance of guilt--it has to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" (in a criminal case, at least).
therefore, the prosecutor must show that Bryant--and therefore his story--is not as credible as the girl's. the defence attorney must show that the girl--and therefore her story--are not as credible as Bryant.
i think there are many things that can be used to damage Bryant's credibility. for example, i'm sure he has had extramarital liasions in the past. does that mean that all people who commit adultery are rapists? no. but could it damage his credibility? yes. do you think they shouldn't be allowed to bring up BRYANT'S sexual history? they absolutely should.
likewise, the girl's credibility must be attacked and defended. she's going to have a difficult time defending it, because her argument was that the sex wasn't consensual at ALL, right? yet she did go up to Bryant's room alone, in violation of hotel policy; sexual history comes into play because somebody who is a real tight-ass about sex (no pun intended) would be less likely to have a one-night quickie fling thing.
as long as the defence attorneys try to portray her as having a normal, regular attitude toward sex--that is, it's fun and she does it--i think that's fine. they just need to show that she is not some kind of prude. what goes beyond the bounds, i think, is trying to prove that she is some kind of sexual predator who took advantage of poor Kobe. but from what i've seen, they're not trying to do that. (I haven't seen EVERYTHING, so i could be wrong).
