[Wizard]

(08-21-2011 12:59 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  

(08-19-2011 11:04 PM)Wizard Wrote:  

The first thing we have to remember is that this is San Francisco, one of the biggest bastions of feminism in the country. The local populace isn't exactly keen to buy the whole "she really wanted it argument", and second you have to look at the guy in question. A lawyer doesn't exactly earn him many sympathy points with anybody.

It still doesn't answer my question: why? I mean, a chick read the Craigslist looking for such ads. She emailed the dude, probably went through a few exchanges. Then she went to the dude's house where he did what he described and what she apparently wanted. So I see a few possibilities there:

- It was really a rape, i.e. a chick at some point decided she had enough, but the dude didn't let her go. Maybe he forced her to eat shit, or had a small dick whatever.

- It was a blackmail attempt, and the dude didn't want to pay.

Quote:

Also I'm almost positive bringing up a woman's prior sexual history is illegal, and wouldn't be admitted into the trial. That is a guess, I could be wrong of course.

I see quite a few questions which would be hard to dismiss as irrelevant, and tough to answer. If she met him in a bar and he asked her to go to his place to see a movie and they ended up having sex, I could easily see how this would qualify as rape. But it is not what happened:

1. She was checking Craigslist "casual encounters" section looking for casual sex, and she filtered out a very specific ad. There may be a lot of questions related to what she was actually looking for, and what she was actually expecting. Those were consensual acts from her side, and I'm pretty sure the court would be interested to hear what she was expecting to actually get from someone posting such a sex ad. There may be other possibilities, for example asking if she ever responded to similar ads in past.

2. I'm sure there were a few back-and-forth - the dude would probably clarify in further details the planned activities, to ensure there is no misunderstanding. I see no reason for him not to do it, after all he's a lawyer. This is also something to ask questions about, since it may reveal whether the consent was given. If it was, this dude was actually in a much better position than you or me fucking a bar whore - he had her consent in writing. Since it cannot be rape if there was consent, it would raise a lot of question at which point this consent was removed, which would lead to further explanation of what actually happened.

Would be an interesting case to follow up.

I think you're attriubting a lot more credence to the criminal justice system then you should. Consent isn't something that can be given prior to the act, and then not revoked. In the eyes of the law, consent can be revoked at any time.

Also a court won't allow the victim to be placed on trial, and a lot of what you're asking could be seen as hear say, being reasonable has nothing to do with it. The problem with rape cases, is a lot of the time they degenerate down to he said, she said.

I still think this guy was an idiot for answering such an ad, but I just don't know how it will end.