freedomdwarf1
Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote:
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 This sounds like a one-sided story that isn't telling the whole truth. The only 'evidence' would be the time of the phone call. Everything else is pure conjecture and spin. There is nothing in this portion that has any independent witness to prove the validity of the story. Without that, it's just a story and nothing else. In most rape, there usually isn't any independent witnesses, but the alcohol level she was in was considered to be hazardous. Like extremely high! That one point was medically ascertained. The level of alcohol is of no bearing whatsoever to her level of mental capacity. As I said in my post, I've seen both ends of the spectrum. This is effectively irrelevant 'evidence' to be ignored. quote:
ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote:
If you take this part: "she claimed she was too intoxicated and weak to know what was really going on until she got to his home and got really scared and didn't want to have sex with him! But there were no wounds, nothing, no violence was done to her, she claim she was too terrified to fight back" at face value, it would seem that she had sufficient mental capacity to be aware of what was going on. Whether she gave consent or not is never likely to be known. But especially with Asian women, some are extremely submissive and timid, they were brought up never to talk back, fight back, you can rape them, with just verbal threats. They freeze up in fear. I just think it should be illegal for any man to have sex with a heavily intoxicated woman, because there is no way she can give the clarity of consent. Asian, black, white, Hispanic..... the race is irrelevant. Everyone is an individual. Their reaction is what they have learned during their lifetime. To claim that 'Asians' are a particular breed would disingenuous. Again, this is small world thinking and not particularly a generality. quote:
ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote:
In essence, there's no difference between consensual sex and rape except that small little word called "no". It's impossible to prove that she said "No". IF they were alone, and there was no voice or video recording. My point exactly. So to assume that consent wasn't given would be jumping to conclusions without evidence to back it up. Given the majority of similar situations, consent (or more exactly, willing participant without objection) would be the norm. Therefore, unless there is sufficient evidence to the contrary, consent is assumed to have been accepted and would be the prima facie evidence. quote:
ORIGINAL: Greta75 quote:
Evidence of resistance is not evidence of rape. That's a fact. Even if it's not rape, he will at least be convicted of assault. There will be something. She needs to get herself badly hurt for sure. As I said before - very bad advice. She could get herself killed by doing this. A lot of the advice in the western world is NOT to provoke anger or a fight for exactly this reason. From the Guardian: Generalising about resistance is also dangerous and distorting. It can be successful but it can also be life-threatening. In the 100 cases I studied for my book, Carnal Knowledge, I discovered that where women failed to escape, resistance often led to an escalation of violence, so could sometimes be a risky strategy. In such circumstances, surviving is more important than avoiding rape.... Contrary to popular belief, women attacked by partners or ex-partners suffer no less serious injuries and are more likely to be killed than women attacked by strangers.... Resisting may be effective where there is an escape route but in an underground car park or deserted spot, or where faced with an assailant much stronger than oneself, it may not be practicable or sensible.
_____________________________
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” George Orwell, 1903-1950
|