i'm glad i'm not a whore

then what are they doing toby, that's the part i don't get? they're trying to say she has a previous history of having cheap meaningless sex with people, so it COULD be the case here too? i don't understand any other point they *could* have. that's what mortifies me.
 
yes, and that's part of the GREAT HUGE HEAPS of badness that's associated with rape. if you suffer embarassment or whatever, that's really sad, but it's part of the crime of rape. you can't just remove that part of the justice process any more than you can remove the rape-kit testing stuff that comes afterward.

it's all on the rapist's head karmically, though.
 
i dont understand your assertion above alex? what i am saying is, i'm just being honest. i'd never press charges and the person would get away with it.
 
i think the route we as a society should take should be a progressive one, and NOT look down on victims because they sucked 37 dicks. not a backwards one of "let's not allow testimony and convict people with inadequate evidence/not convict rapists because the victim is embarassed".

incidentally, if you get embarassed about your sexual history and therefore won't testify and therefore Rapemaster Jones goes free and rapes someone else, i think that that is partially your fault, karmically.
 
i think it's basically what alex said a few posts ago, that it's showing her as "not a prude" and therefore more likely to have had the sex be consentual. By no means do I think it should be the deciding factor in this case, but I do think it's relevant to a small degree.
 
well it will probably, in this day and age, be a deciding factor. is what i am saying. she's a whore, and therefore, she whored again but with a rich guy and thought she could get over. with the current climate: it can free a rapist that a girl was a whore even if he DID rape her.

also: alex. i am just not even touching your post as i am assuming you will recant the last part unconsciously at a future date.
 
also: most of my female friends are probably considered pretty slutty by most people's standards. and i imagine they'd be too scared to say anything either if this is the course of events for the future of criminal prosecution :(
 
i agree with you in those general terms. It's a shame that there's no other evidence in this case and that t has to hinge on something like this. But I also don't think, if he is in fact innocent, an innocent man should get convicted just to protect the precedent.
 
well this isn't an abstract case. it will apply to all of us. and the world isn't ready for it. and the law is there before the perception is destroyed now i guess.
 
American society may not be completely ready for gay marriage, either, but that's one big way to effect social change: make the right laws and the culture will come around.

that is a big reason why i oppose enshrining 50s-style embarassment about sex and recognition of the legitimacy of the virgin/whore dichotomy for women into law. it's a huge step backwards and the culture will follow it.
 
alex: it doesn't really work that way.
let's see what happens i guess, shall we?
that's like saying 'outlaw abortion and the sexual culture will change with it'

guess that didn't work either.
 
i'm saying yeah, it will contribute to a large degree. laws outlawing interracial sex helped contribute to maintaining the attitude that interracial sex was wrong.

toby, i think so, but also because Nigeria is in a struggle between Islamists and Christians and I think it was really bad press for the Muslim part to be publically engaged in such tomfoolery.