Woman accuses three men of rape after drunken romp

goodie2shoes

Quorum wrote: »

How?

how can any woman who has consensual intercourse with 3 guys she's just met be possibly defiled in any way?
such a woman is little more than human garbage.

hatrickpatrick

eviltwin wrote: »

Lots of rapes happen in non sexual settings. Even when they do sexual history is no indication of anything. Fair enough it should be known if there is a history of these kinds of claims but lets not go back to this idea that nice girls don't get raped, only the bad girls do and they probably asked for it.

Not to stir the pot or drag us further off topic, but you realize of course that by defining promiscuous girls as "bad girls" and 'innocent' girls as "nice girls", you're adding to a ridiculous stereotype which belongs in the middle ages along with premarital chastity belts and what not?

Just saying... I know plenty of girls who sleep around regularly and who are unbelievably nice people who no one would have a single bad thing to say about. Being promiscuous doesn't mean you're not nice.

Millicent

goodie2shoes wrote: »

this story clearly demonstrates why sexual history is probably the most important factor to consider in these cases.
or maybe you're trying to tell us this little madame was as pure a the virgin snow?:eek:

Are you trying to insinuate that prostitutes don't get raped? To put this another way, if someone was the victim of an assault, would you judge that victim because they had been the victim of an assault before? Would that somehow make it the victim's fault in that instance? No because to suggest otherwise would be fucking retarded...

Madam_X

goodie2shoes wrote: »

this story clearly demonstrates why sexual history is probably the most important factor to consider in these cases.
or maybe you're trying to tell us this little madame was as pure a the virgin snow?:eek:

Can't see how she's remotely suggesting that. False dichotomies - seriously poor arguing tool.

hatrickpatrick

goodie2shoes wrote: »

how can any woman who has consensual intercourse with 3 guys she's just met be possibly defiled in any way?
such a woman is little more than human garbage.

But if I as a lad were to have consensual intercourse with 3 girls I've just met, I'd be defined as a demi-God, right?

There's something incredibly pathetic about that tbh. Describing someone as "human garbage" purely based on their personal choices with regard to sex is a bit sickening.

If you want to describe her as "human garbage" based on her actions with regard to the false rape claims, I'd have a bit more sympathy, but to describe someone in such horrific terms because they're promiscuous is just sad.

Tombi!

goodie2shoes wrote: »

how can any woman who has consensual intercourse with 3 guys she's just met be possibly defiled in any way?
such a woman is little more than human garbage.

And the nice three men that decided to take turns on her?
What are they? Perfect gentlemen?

Just because some woman is (imo she is a slut for having a fourway but opinions will differ obviously) a slut/promiscious/whatever doesn't mean that she should be seen as someone who can't be raped.

eviltwin

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not to stir the pot or drag us further off topic, but you realize of course that by defining promiscuous girls as "bad girls" and 'innocent' girls as "nice girls", you're adding to a ridiculous stereotype which belongs in the middle ages along with premarital chastity belts and what not?

Just saying... I know plenty of girls who sleep around regularly and who are unbelievably nice people who no one would have a single bad thing to say about. Being promiscuous doesn't mean you're not nice.

I agree with you. I don't see what sexual history has to do with it at all, if a woman likes lot of casual sex or threesomes or whatever then so what, that doesn't mean anything to me, she is just as easily likely to be a rape victim as the woman who has only had one partner.

I am old enough to remember the days when sexual history was taken into account and there was a definite view that if you were a woman who had casual sex you were asking for it, I would hate to see us slide back into that mindset.

Micky Dolenz

goodie2shoes wrote: »

how can any woman who has consensual intercourse with 3 guys she's just met be possibly defiled in any way?
such a woman is little more than human garbage.

Human garbage you say. And who are you to judge what human garbage is?

A person can fcuk as many people as they want, when they want, how they want. Who are you to judge?

The real issue is making false accusations afterward. Thats pretty low.

Millicent

eviltwin wrote: »

I am old enough to remember the days when sexual history was taken into account and there was a definite view that if you were a woman who had casual sex you were asking for it, I would hate to see us slide back into that mindset.

It's still taken into account here. We have no rape shield laws on our books.

eviltwin

Millicent wrote: »

It's still taken into account here. We have no rape shield laws on our books.

:eek:

goodie2shoes

i will be very soon be doing jury service, and if the case is alleged rape then i very much hope the sexual history of the "victim" will be examined.

if not then it's a sham and i for one will NOT convict the alleged perpetrator.

hatrickpatrick

eviltwin wrote: »

I agree with you. I don't see what sexual history has to do with it at all, if a woman likes lot of casual sex or threesomes or whatever then so what, that doesn't mean anything to me, she is just as easily likely to be a rape victim as the woman who has only had one partner.

I am old enough to remember the days when sexual history was taken into account and there was a definite view that if you were a woman who had casual sex you were asking for it, I would hate to see us slide back into that mindset.

Indeed. It was very subtle in your post, but the way in which you (perhaps unwittingly) equated non-promiscuity with being a "nice" girl struck a nerve. Promiscuity or lack thereof doesn't have to define your character, what makes you nice is how you treat others.
Not attacking you at all btw, it's a stereotype which people use almost unconsciously, but it's interesting to note all the same I feel.

Tombi!

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i will be very soon be doing jury service, and if the case is alleged rape then i very much hope the sexual history of the "victim" will be examined.

if not then it's a sham and i for one will NOT convict the alleged perpetrator.

Well thank feck they have ways to get biased people out of juries then, eh?

Millicent

eviltwin wrote: »

:eek:

I know. Allowed in three out of four cases in a sample study of 40 as recently as 2010.

eviltwin

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Indeed. It was very subtle in your post, but the way in which you (perhaps unwittingly) equated non-promiscuity with being a "nice" girl struck a nerve. Promiscuity or lack thereof doesn't have to define your character, what makes you nice is how you treat others.
Not attacking you at all btw, it's a stereotype which people use almost unconsciously, but it's interesting to note all the same I feel.

Just to say I wasn't implying that at all, I'm no angel myself but that is the kind of thing I grew up hearing and its clear some people still believe it.

I probably should have worded the post better though.

Quorum

goodie2shoes wrote: »

how can any woman who has consensual intercourse with 3 guys she's just met be possibly defiled in any way?
such a woman is little more than human garbage.

Sigh. OK, this is what I'm dealing with. Quorum out.

Millicent

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i will be very soon be doing jury service, and if the case is alleged rape then i very much hope the sexual history of the "victim" will be examined.

if not then it's a sham and i for one will NOT convict the alleged perpetrator.

I think you should recuse yourself or whatever it is jurors do before you start, just as a favour to all involved.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not at all, I was referring to the claims that the Rape Crisis Center's statistics should be taken as absolute fact and therefore that it should be assumed that a lot of men who are cleared of rape actually are rapists and that the legal system simply failed to catch them. That is a horrific way of looking at things.

Would you doubt people who don't report burglaries as much?

eviltwin

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i will be very soon be doing jury service, and if the case is alleged rape then i very much hope the sexual history of the "victim" will be examined.

if not then it's a sham and i for one will NOT convict the alleged perpetrator.

Dear god I hope you are just bored at this time of night and trolling.

So what if the victim was dragged off a street on her way home by a total stranger? Or is raped by her husband/partner? Does her sexual history still matter then?

wonderfullife

ah here lads is this the 21st century or what? A 3some doesnt make a person a slapper, nor does a 4some , nor does the fact she's "bedded 50 fellas in her life"!!! Sure lets be real our own mothers could be secret swingers and get up to all sorts in private! (not mine she's a saint lol ) But genuinely there are thousands of married couples in Ireland and worldwide who "swing" and engage in group sex in the privacy of their own homes. nothing wrong with it and doesnt make them slappers.

The only thing wrong with this girl was a stupid, malicious attempt to ruin 3 lives and for that she deserved the book thrown at her.

Micky Dolenz

goodie2shoes wrote: »

i will be very soon be doing jury service, and if the case is alleged rape then i very much hope the sexual history of the "victim" will be examined.

if not then it's a sham and i for one will NOT convict the alleged perpetrator.

Ok, as an example.

What about if a prostitute gets raped? They sell sex for a living.

Would you convict that rapist.

say_who_now?

TheBoss! wrote: »

say_who_now? wrote: »

As for "what she put these men through", awh the poor dears, they spent a night in the cells for their depraved little fùckfest.

You have to be trolling.

For the second time in this thread, I have been falsely accused of trolling.

Now, normal procedure as per charter rules (the "laws" of boards.ie, if you will), I would be encouraged to report the posts, but I am not going to do this because it's only a trivial and childish thing to call someone a troll when you disagree with their opinion. Once you understand the behaviour, it's easier to rationalise it, and then the simplest explanation is usually the right one- the poster who calls troll is unable to formulate a rational rebuttal in the discussion.

nacho libre wrote: »

not necessarily, she could just be a sociopath, rather than her lacking empathy because of previous sexual abuse.

TheBoss! wrote: »

Oh, I don't doubt that that is indeed a possibility, here is one such nut.

Case in point- speculation about her mental state and even points raised about possible sexual abuse. The simplest and most rational explanation in this case is more likely that she was so disgusted at what she felt was done to her that she felt they deserved to pay for what they did. She felt she was in the right to want revenge for what was done to her. Like I said, what these guys did was despicable, but as it turned out, she was also just a bitter little bitch! All as bad as each other, Jeremy Kyle candidates the lot of them, or fodder for the daily mail.

The truly sad part about all this is that it could have been so easily prevented if the opportunistic little shìts had kept it in their pants when they saw that this girl was clearly not in her right mind at the time. According to the article posted, this girl was known to at least one of these guys so common sense should have prevailed. They put themselves in the situation without considering the possible consequences of their behaviour, their reasons for which I can only speculate were to humiliate this girl, and she in turn decided that they would pay for what she saw as them having humiliated her.

eviltwin

Millicent wrote: »

I know. Allowed in three out of four cases in a sample study of 40 as recently as 2010.

I am really shocked at that, thanks for the link. Is it any wonder the reporting rate for rape is so low when you face that kind of crap?

Tombi!

wonderfullife wrote: »

ah here lads is this the 21st century or what? A 3some doesnt make a person a slapper, nor does a 4some , nor does the fact she's "bedded 50 fellas in her life"!!! Sure lets be real our own mothers could be secret swingers and get up to all sorts in private! (not mine she's a saint lol ) But genuinely there are thousands of married couples in Ireland and worldwide who "swing" and engage in group sex in the privacy of their own homes. nothing wrong with it and doesnt make them slappers.

The only thing wrong with this girl was a stupid, malicious attempt to ruin 3 lives and for that she deserved the book thrown at her.

Well I think she's a slapper. I don't mean that in a negative way. But generally speaking I wouldn't feel happy dating her. That's my hangup though. But I get your point; some people are trying to equate being highly sexual to meaning it's okay if she gets raped since she probably wouldn't mind it something equally as stupid.

goodie2shoes

Millicent wrote: »

I think you should recuse yourself or whatever it is jurors do before you start, just as a favour to all involved.

absolutely not, but i shall be weighing up very carefully if the alleged victim was a slapper or not.

any girl that invites 3 strangers back to hers, deserves everything she gets imo.

hatrickpatrick

eviltwin wrote: »

Just to say I wasn't implying that at all, I'm no angel myself but that is the kind of thing I grew up hearing and its clear some people still believe it.

That's exactly what I'm saying, it's an almost unconscious thing which is ingrained into us, so much that we don't even note it!

I probably should have worded the post better though.

Like I said, you probably didn't think twice about it. It's a deeply ingrained societal thing, not the fault of any one individual, but I really hope it changes in my lifetime.
I think I'm odd though in how extremely I reject the concept of tying sexual promiscuity to character and shaming it. I could tell you a funny story but it's a bit cringe, long story short a girl I was fooling around with wanted me to call her a slut in dirty talk, then found it absolutely hilarious that I could be so utterly filthy in everything else but refused to call her that on principle

Millicent

goodie2shoes wrote: »

absolutely not, but i shall be weighing up very carefully if the alleged victim was a slapper or not.

any girl that invites 3 strangers back to hers, deserves everything she gets imo.

So do the guys deserve the false rape accusation in this case based on that flawless logic? :rolleyes:

Tombi!

goodie2shoes wrote: »

absolutely not, but i shall be weighing up very carefully if the alleged victim was a slapper or not.

any girl that invites 3 strangers back to hers, deserves everything she gets imo.

You know, if you have that much of a messed up attitude towards women, it would have done us all a great favour if you said it at the start instead of acting like we should take you serious.

hatrickpatrick

goodie2shoes wrote: »

absolutely not, but i shall be weighing up very carefully if the alleged victim was a slapper or not.

any girl that invites 3 strangers back to hers, deserves everything she gets imo.

As a lad who is extremely infuriated when it comes to issues such as false or unfair rape allegations, you're really not doing us any favours here

Micky Dolenz

goodie2shoes wrote: »

absolutely not, but i shall be weighing up very carefully if the alleged victim was a slapper or not.

any girl that invites 3 strangers back to hers, deserves everything she gets imo.

Sigh, Bet you're fun at parties, eh.

Banned.

Millicent

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Sigh, Bet you're fun at parties, eh.

Banned.

Can you ban him from jury duty too, pretty please?

Micky Dolenz

Millicent wrote: »

Can you ban him from jury duty too, pretty please?

Ok so :pac:

wonderfullife

eviltwin wrote: »

I am really shocked at that, thanks for the link. Is it any wonder the reporting rate for rape is so low when you face that kind of crap?

It's sad alright. The interesting bit in that link was some Defence teams addressing subsequent sexual relations after the sexual assault incident. In that respect, it can't look good for a girl if she accuses a guy of sexual assault and goes out and sleeps with someone else a week later, whatever her motivation.

Millicent

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Ok so :pac:

Damn, that ban hammer is powerful.











Does that sound smutty to anyone else? :pac:

hatrickpatrick

K-9 wrote: »

Would you doubt people who don't report burglaries as much?

If someone went on the radio and berated our courts for not convicting more accused burglars, yes. If people were arguing that many people who are acquitted of burglary are actually guilty and the legal system just f*cked up, yes.

Innocent until proven guilty is far too important a principle in any democratic system to allow it to be diluted. If you haven't been convicted, you should not be regarded as guilty.

Tombi!

Millicent wrote: »

Can you ban him from jury duty too, pretty please?

But it'll be funnier: So what's everyone think so far?
Well, her story is a bit dodgy to me.
Why's that?
She hugged someone before marriage! That kind of behaviour means she was desperately asking for it.

Or something else akin to that logical reasoning. :pac:

mackg

goodie2shoes wrote: »

this story clearly demonstrates why sexual history is probably the most important factor to consider in these cases.
or maybe you're trying to tell us this little madame was as pure a the virgin snow?:eek:

I'd say your wrong there. Surely the evidence is the most important factor to consider.

Also that crap about bad girls? Seriously, what's wrong with having a foursome? Or an orgy? Or being tied to a wall and whipped for that matter? Peoples sex lives are their own and what they do consensually has fcuk all bearing on anything that happens without consent.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Not at all, I was referring to the claims that the Rape Crisis Center's statistics should be taken as absolute fact and therefore that it should be assumed that a lot of men who are cleared of rape actually are rapists and that the legal system simply failed to catch them. That is a horrific way of looking at things.

A big part of the Rape crisis centres claims are that a lot of rapes go unreported. As has been said before why would someone make up a crime and not report it?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's a lot worse for an innocent man or woman to end up in prison than for an innocent man or woman to go free wrongly, just in my opinion. So to put it in a different context, if there's a reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime, it's better to let them go than to take the risk of jailing them for something they didn't do and destroying their life.

This is already the status quo in court, innocent until proven guilty. I just find the constant berating of the low conviction rate for rape a little uneasy, because it implies that a lot of people who are not convicted, should in fact have been convicted - and by extension, that one should not need to be found guilty in court in order to be presumed guilty by society at large. This is fundamentally wrong.

The bold part doesn't make any sense. I'm pretty sure reasonable doubt is how the courts work already, although that is based largely on T.V. shows. I don't think anyone found guilty in a court is having their innocence questioned, its more talking about cases that aren't reported or where there is no evidence to bring a case.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'll give you another example. Dominic Strauss Kahn, whether guilty or not, had the case against him dropped in the United States due to credibility issues against his accuser. He was not found guilty in court, legally speaking he IS innocent, as he has not been found guilty. Yet he still lost his job, and many, many sections of society and the media regard him as guilty even though nothing was ever proven against him.

The same can be said for Michael Jackson. How many people made jokes about him being a pedo despite the fact that at no point was he ever convicted of anything? That allegation smeared him for the rest of his life, and could very possibly have led at least in part to the depression which plagued him in his final years.

For anyone to belittle the damage a false sexual allegation does to the accused is madness - and anyone suggesting that because conviction rates are low, we should assume most accusers are still telling the truth - in other words, that most accused men who walk free are in fact actually guilty - is perpetuating and adding to this problem.

I agree with this. Every case should be investigated on merit, that's all there is to it. It should not be taken for granted anyone is guilty until proven so and being found not guilty should be taken by all to mean they are not guilty.

EDIT: Didn't see this page was here for a second thought I was just really slow at typing when I saw all the replys.

Millicent

wonderfullife wrote: »

It's sad alright. The interesting bit in that link was some Defence teams addressing subsequent sexual relations after the sexual assault incident. In that respect, it can't look good for a girl if she accuses a guy of sexual assault and goes out and sleeps with someone else a week later, whatever her motivation.

There could be any number of reasons for that though. Wanting to erase the feeling of forceful rape with a consensual experience; having to hide a rape from a spouse or partner; a rise in promiscuity that some victims experience. It's dangerous to ascribe a set behaviour (i.e. abstaining from subsequent sexual encounters) to every victim of rape.

B.A._Baracus

That girl is question is quite the slut & quite the evil person. That is all. :pac:

eviltwin

Millicent wrote: »

There could be any number of reasons for that though. Wanting to erase the feeling of forceful rape with a consensual experience; having to hide a rape from a spouse or partner; a rise in promiscuity that some victims experience. It's dangerous to ascribe a set behaviour (i.e. abstaining from subsequent sexual encounters) to every victim of rape.

It could be the victim wanting to take back control of her sex life again, it might be strange to imagine someone wanting sexual contact after such an experience but a trauma of that magnitude is always going to affect each person in a different way.

Millicent

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

That girl is question is quite the slut & quite the evil person. That is all. :pac:

Sigh...

Tombi!

Millicent wrote: »

Sigh...

I think he was actually joking because of the last few pages.

Madam_X

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

That girl is question is quite the slut & quite the evil person. That is all. :pac:

Yet again, priority focus on her sexual behaviour rather than the false accusation she made.

B.A._Baracus

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

I think he was actually joking because of the last few pages.

........ I wasnt :pac:

Millicent wrote: »

Sigh...

And why the sigh Millicent?
What issue did you have with my post?
The slut part? or the evil part? :pac:

Millicent

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

And why the sigh Millicent?
What issue did you have with my post?
The slut part? or the evil part? :pac:

Way to restart an argument all over again. Well done.

B.A._Baracus

Madam_X wrote: »

Yet again, priority focus on her sexual behaviour rather than the false accusation she made.

erm... did i not say she was evil too?
kinda washed over that part didnt you?

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If someone went on the radio and berated our courts for not convicting more accused burglars, yes. If people were arguing that many people who are acquitted of burglary are actually guilty and the legal system just f*cked up, yes.

Innocent until proven guilty is far too important a principle in any democratic system to allow it to be diluted. If you haven't been convicted, you should not be regarded as guilty.

Yea, people do.

Which is my point, AH is full of threads about the lack of justice in the courts.

So, do you think rape cases are any different? It's the same proof of guilt after all.

Tombi!

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

erm... did i not say she was evil too?
kinda washed over that part didnt you?

One of the arguments over the last few pages (and before that) was saying that the woman was a slut and it leading to people understanding it that if a woman is highly sexual that it somehow means raping her is fine or that she would be lying.

wonderfullife

Millicent wrote: »

There could be any number of reasons for that though. Wanting to erase the feeling of forceful rape with a consensual experience; having to hide a rape from a spouse or partner; a rise in promiscuity that some victims experience. It's dangerous to ascribe a set behaviour (i.e. abstaining from subsequent sexual encounters) to every victim of rape.

oh i know but my point is the fact it's something defence lawyers can raise is sad. Simply because it makes it too easy to paint the girl as a "slut" etc and prey on the same old misguided prejudices.

If a Jury of 7 women and 5 men heard a girl went out and had sex a week after apparently being raped, both the women and men would likely think "jaysus if that was me i wouldnt be doing that, hence she must be lying". Whereas truth is they dont know how they would behave in those circumstances.

So the ability to raise it in court is sad.

Millicent

wonderfullife wrote: »

oh i know but my point is the fact it's something defence lawyers can raise is sad. Simply because it makes it too easy to paint the girl as a "slut" etc and prey on the same old misguided prejudices.

If a Jury of 7 women and 5 men heard a girl went out and had sex a week after apparently being raped, both the women and men would likely think "jaysus if that was me i wouldnt be doing that, hence she must be lying". Whereas truth is they dont know how they would behave in those circumstances.

So the ability to raise it in court is sad.

Ah, sorry, I completely misread you. We are in full agreement so. It's prejudicial and a cheap tactic when a legal team can't competently argue a case, IMO.