Quote:
Originally posted by JR@Jul 30 2003, 11:05 AM
how can you say its not different? for someone to prove there was rape, they have to prove that they were raped. there is forensic evidence, the woman is examined, there is other evidence, there is testimony and witnesses etc.
we are not talking about that at all right now. we are talking about two people fucking and someone claiming after the fact that they said "no" at some point during intercourse - if all other evidence exists to show there was non consensual sex, then its rape no matter what right? then why the new law?
but they are not saying that. the law as i understand it simply requires someon to "say" they did not consent WHILE in the middle of consensual sex. thats hardly the same as being ambushed in the park at 1:00 am and ending up in the hospital for three weeks.
this law is redefining what rape is. why is that necessary?
|
The reason I say that is because very few 'rapes' are the 1am, walking through the park type rapes....most are casual 'friends' and acquaintances who spend the evening on a date and end up in bed....
Whether she said no from the very start or once things got hot is no matter.
The 'park' type rapes are very much what you describe ie: forensics, physical proof etc....
However, in most of date rape cases (the most common form of rape), there is a huge gray area because there isn't always clear physical proof......this is more common than not....