Re: Sorry but you're all missing the point Archived Message
Posted by dereklane on July 1, 2019, 10:00 pm, in reply to "Re: Sorry but you're all missing the point"
If it was an explicit condition then the sex was not consensual; they both agreed that it was consensual, therefore, not rape. The point of the condoms (after the fact info) is that one was torn the other used. One not even worn, the other worn and used. Neither were presentation of evidence that he had raped either woman, so why their purpose was I have no idea. What was therefore relevant was that both women agreed the sex was consensual. If he had removed his condom and at that point they said no, it would have been non consensual and therefore rape. But what we heard was that after the fact both agreed it was consensual, which means it could not in he wildest fancies of ridiculous lawmen and women be treated as rape. And therefore, not amongst the responders on the post margo linked to either. And the consensual point is the one he preceded with when making his 'flippant' statement about what constituted rape. I believe he had a point. Consent is and should remain as the bottom line to whether or not rape is committed lest it do a serious disservice to actual rape victims (by cheapening the crime to legal red tape).
|
|