batgoat wrote: » None of the above was applicable to this scenario, it was simply to imply she wanted to have sex because of how she dressed. This relates to the case in terms of the psychological impact of such treatment of victims.https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-ayrshire-girl-who-killed-13591548?fbclid=IwAR1Ep_gGqKEfyrcurkbsm55HfWd0XvAAlDr_7ed8t5DFoa--bE6O2suFxNs
batgoat wrote: » So spurious evidence that can negatively impact the victim psychologically is all good? A rape trial is traumatic for the victim in its own right so allow unnecessary humiliation and trauma to the trial is not okay. Worth checking the piece that was linked to btw.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Could you explain to me what you feel is wrong with the defence presenting that argument as a reasonable assumption? The way people dress themselves it is often reasonable to assume they want to have sex. There’s nothing in that statement which implies that it is ever acceptable for anyone else to commit rape against that person for any reason.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Could you explain to me what you feel is wrong with the defence presenting that argument as a reasonable assumption? The way people dress themselves it is often reasonable to assume they want to have sex. There’s nothing in that statement which implies that it is ever acceptable for anyone else to commit rape against that person for any reason. It’s reasonable to assume that people are wearing underwear for their own comfort, people go commando for their own comfort too, an entirely reasonable assumption. It’s also a reasonable assumption that people are generally dressed the way they do in order to appeal to people who they want to find them sexually attractive. It’s also reasonable to assume that some people simply don’t care how they’re dressed. All reasonable assumptions, none of which indicates that a person wishes at any point to be raped. By your trying to direct people’s attention away from that, you’ve actually causing them to focus on it more and ask why are you trying to direct their attention away from how a person is dressed, as though there is something wrong with assuming the way a person is dressed is an indication of plenty of things to other people. It’s an unreasonable rejection of reality which you’re asking people to accept because those assumptions don’t fit your narrative. People are bombarded with sexualised images and messages every day in the same media that condemns people for making assumptions about people on the basis that they are fitting in with those sexualised images and messages they get from the same media.
Sweetemotion wrote: » This utterly ridiculous, any man who thinks it's ok to rape a woman because she was wearing a thong is not right in the head.
Lillybloom wrote: » Evidence which can affect the probabilty of events having occured should be allowed regardless of the difficulty it causes. Should we ignore a person's google search history because it contains embarrasing evidence which could affect the outcome of a trial.
LLMMLL wrote: » It would only have value in providing for a reasonable assumption if that underwear was exclusively or mostly worn by women intending to have sex. This thread has shown that is not the case. Let me try again. Would you assume that most times a woman wears a thong she is intending to have sex? If the answer is no (as we all know it is) then it would be UNreasonable to assume that the wearing of a thong is evidence of intent to have sex. And if it's an unreasonable assumption in everyday life, it's an even more unreasonable assumption Ina court of law.
Again there are plenty of rules and restrictions surrounding what both the defense and prosecution can use as evidence. This is not for the jury to determine, or the prosecution. It's up to a combination of the state, the courts system, precedent, and ultimately the trial judge. The defendant shouldn't get EVERY opportunity to defend themselves. They should get every opportunity consistent with rules surrounding evidence and court procedures.Underwear as evidence of sexual intent should most certainly not be allowed as part of that.
Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: » What? Women wear red lip stick so they’re obviously promiscuous. Women wear short dresses so they’re looking for sex. Women wear high heels, they want to get laid. What about when a man is into something not conventionally sexy? Oh she was wearing a chunky knit polo neck your honor I just knew she was playing hard to get. What if she does want to have sex, is that a blanket consent to any males that may attack her? “She was going to have sex with someone that night your honour, so why does it matter if it was me?” Wearing a thong is not giving consent.
limnam wrote: » Where is this rubbish coming from. Who said rape was ok? no one. He wasn't found guilty of rape thong or no bloody thong.
Sweetemotion wrote: » That's some nice cherry picking you have done there.
limnam wrote: » I can't pick it if you don't say it.
Mrsmum wrote: » Yes I agree in some cases the man may genuinely believe he had consent and so in law it was not rape. But in other cases rape in law did take place and just can't be proved. Such a man would also be found 'not guilty'.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Your argument is gone to shìt on that basis alone. I would assume that, and I would assume plenty more, and in none of those assumptions is any assumption that she (or indeed he) would want to be raped.
And in this case, her underwear met all the criteria you present above, ergo the idea that it should not be used as evidence of sexual intent to demonstrate that the defendant could have been of the reasonable and honest belief that the encounter was consensual, is an entirely valid argument. It would be the same if the evidence consisted of any evidence for why the defendant was of the honest belief that the encounter was consensual based upon an infinite number of criteria. In this case, it just so happened to be the underwear the complainant was wearing at the time of the encounter was presented as evidence that the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, was also reasonable.
Sammber wrote: » edit sorry meant clare daily, absolutely disgusting low cut tops ewwwww
LLMMLL wrote: » I didn't say anything about anyone assuming she would want to be raped. But your assumption that someone wearing a thong intends to have sex is unreasonable and quite frankly bizarre. We actually have no idea whether the evidence met all the criteria I stated. As far as I'm aware we don't know if the trial judge made any direction after the closing statement though it seems he or she did not. If it's the case that the trial judge did not, we do not know if that is consistent with precedent or law etc. Or an error on the judges part. But assuming for the sake of argument that it was completely at the discretion of the trial judge, I am saying that this should be changed, whether that be through legislation or guidelines or whatever method the legal system finds best suited to prevent this situation from ever occurring again.
nullzero wrote: » My point is that it cuts both ways. A man could be under the impression that consent was given in a situation and be found guilty of rape. Not all men are bad and not all women are good and vice versa.
LLMMLL wrote: » I didn't say anything about anyone assuming she would want to be raped. But your assumption that someone wearing a thong intends to have sex is unreasonable and quite frankly bizarre.
We actually have no idea whether the evidence met all the criteria I stated. As far as I'm aware we don't know if the trial judge made any direction after the closing statement though it seems he or she did not. If it's the case that the trial judge did not, we do not know if that is consistent with precedent or law etc. Or an error on the judges part.But assuming for the sake of argument that it was completely at the discretion of the trial judge, I am saying that this should be changed, whether that be through legislation or guidelines or whatever method the legal system finds best suited to prevent this situation from ever occurring again.
batgoat wrote: » I'm not really surprised by the poster's view unfortunately. In terms of how we handle rape trials, I'd suspect we need to start looking at other jurisdictions to see how we can improve our system. The likes of the rape crisis center have highlighted issues with how they're conducted in general. Eg 1 in 3 trials results in going over a victims sexual history.
One eyed Jack wrote: » In this case, it just so happened to be the underwear the complainant was wearing at the time of the encounter was presented as evidence that the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, was also reasonable.
retro:electro wrote: » I now have to consider whether the ****ing knickers I put on hours before will be used against me to justify how much I wanted it.
Hurrache wrote: » Is your masculinity threatened by every woman, or just ones that talk?
Outlaw Pete won't be happy with you, a woman, leaping to his defence though.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » The judge should have instructed the jury to ignore the solicitor. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if an appeal for a mistrial is lodged.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I’m qualifying that there is a whole world of a difference between wanting to have sex, and rape. You’re attempting to play down the significance of lacy thongs in sexual encounters and I find that entirely disingenuous, because there is fcukall wrong with someone wearing a lacy thong in the pursuit of a sexual encounter. According to you that’s an unreasonable assumption. I know it’s difficult, but try and see past yourself for two minutes and imagine that people choose to wear certain clothes because they want to project a certain image of themselves. If that still sounds unreasonable to you, then fair enough. I’ll park it there.
It is ultimately as you said earlier at the discretion of the trial judge and is deliberated over before any trial even commences. There is no way to prevent situations like this from occurring again because in criminal trials where the defendant is on trial accused of rape, the underwear the complainant was wearing at the time the alleged offence was committed, will generally be considered relevant evidence for the defendant. The only reason any argument which refers to the defendants underwear in evidence is argued against, is specifically because of the context in which it is presented by the defence. That’s not compelling enough reason to argue that it should be considered irrelevant in a case where the defendant is on trial accused of rape.
Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: » So not only are women to blame for their own rape, because they wore a thong, they should also be denied abortions from those rapes.
Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: » Nothing wrong in any legal sense but it does show her opinion towards women, imo
Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: » Women can hold whatever opinions they like as long as their opinion doesn’t interfere or damage another person.
LLMMLL wrote: » The number one reason given has been comfort.
Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: » Wearing a thong is not giving consent.
retro:electro wrote: » But you’re asking the jury to consider the possibility that the underwear the plaintiff had on could have, in a pre-meditated way, informed her decision to have sex hours later that night. Surely that is absolutely no one’s business to answer only the woman who put them on? You are asking a group of strangers to make that decision on the behalf of someone else, it cannot be done. There is no way anyone could ever reasonably answer that, it is pointless, futile and judgemental rubbish. All it concedes to do is make it even harder for victims of rape to take a case to court, because on top of being probed, examined, dissected physically, mentally and emotionally in a system where I feel like it’s not even worth it, I now have to consider whether the ****ing knickers I put on hours before will be used against me to justify how much I wanted it.
LLMMLL wrote: » Lol where did I say there is anything wrong with wearing Lacy thongs during a sexual encounter. This just gets more and more crazy. I'm arguing against your assertion that it's REASONABLE to assume that someone wearing a thong intends to have sex.What is your definition of test of the reasonableness of an assumption? A pretty standard test would be whether your assumption generally proves to be true or has any predictive power, I.e. if I interviewed 100 women wearing thongs and asked them were they intending to have sex today and whether the thong was indicative of that. If most of them said yes I would agree that your assumption is reasonable. However as this thread has shown most women seem to find it laughable (if it wasn't so tragic in this case) that their wearing of a thong has anything to do with sexual intent. The number one reason given has been comfort. Unless you think all these women are lying, then this is clear evidence that your assumption is false. Basically, if you assume that a woman in a thong intends to have sex in most cases you would be incorrect. How on Earth could anyone define an assumption that is wrong more often than it's right as reasonable. The mind truly boggles.
You mean the context that the underwear is evidence of sexual intent? Yes I am arguing against that and I think that should be prevented, by whatever methods we have available to prevent that. I'm not saying underwear can never be used, as forensic evidence for instance.
Mrsmum wrote: » One of the very common reasons women wear thongs is to hide a visible panti line. Ask any woman and she will agree. For instance when wearing trousers women don't want the world and his aunt to clearly see the shape of their knickers. For some this is because they don't think a vpl is a stylish look and for other women having a vpl is actually embarrassing as it is revealing their underwear even under clothes. So wearing a thong is the very opposite of sending forth messages of sexual intent. They are wearing thongs to hide their underwear and just have a smooth line to their outer clothing. Therefore it is absolutely ludicrous to me to have it used in court as if it always means being ready for sex. Also can I just say if being dressed in a sexy or pretty way for sex is important to a particular woman, I can't square that with doing the big reveal in a muddy back alley where their impact is zero.
ceadaoin. wrote: » This.I only wear thongs when I don't want a visible underwear line through my clothes. Seems like most of the people on here saying that wearing a thong means a woman wants sex or that thongs are associated with sex in the first place are men. Like is it so unthinkable that a woman might wear an item that men find sexy not for men at all, but for other reasons!
