[Puffer Fish]

A woman claims that her boyfriend she was with raped her. However, multiple witnesses claim they saw the two together at a party the day after the alleged "rape" took place, and the two were talking to each other and acting normal, like a typical couple.

You are on a jury. Would you be willing to find the man guilty of "rape"?


I know that hypothetical may sound totally absurd to some of you, but in this day and age of Feminism, there are many people who seem to believe the man should still be found guilty in that situation. That just because the woman did not immediately leave him does not mean that a "rape" didn't take place.

[MistyTiger]

You need a "Not sure" category. There is not enough information given to conclude if the rape happened or not. Maybe he paid her $500 and a shopping spree so she would shut up. Who knows? Some women are easily bribed with money and gifts.

If a woman has been raped and she calls it that, she should provide the evidence. She should rush to the hospital and have a rape kit done. She should have photos of bruises and wounds on her body to show that force was used. Video evidence would be good too if possible. Just a verbal claim isn't enough to really weigh in on if a rape occurred or not.

And the jury questions might not be as specific as the question you have.

The question I would use is, "Is there enough evidence to prove or disprove that a rape occurred?" I would say no.

[Puffer Fish]

Maybe he paid her $500 and a shopping spree so she would shut up. Who knows? Some women are easily bribed with money and gifts.

So if he gave her a $500 gift card to the mall, and she decided to shut up and allowed that to placate her, and was then seen at a party enjoying herself with that man, but then later changed her mind and decided she wanted to press charges again, should we convict him of rape?

Or how about if she was initially appeased, but then found out that $500 gift card was a fake and had no credit on it and that's why she wanted to press charges?

[Politics_Observer]

I would need more evidence. A rape could have occurred. So, I am with @MistyTiger on this one. "Unsure." I did not answer the poll because there was no middle option.

[Puffer Fish]

I would need more evidence.

So if the claims and accusations of the woman were the only evidence, you do not believe the man should be criminally charged?

[Puffer Fish]

If a woman has been raped and she calls it that, she should provide the evidence. She should rush to the hospital and have a rape kit done. She should have photos of bruises and wounds on her body to show that force was used. Video evidence would be good too if possible.

In most cases of alleged rape between a husband and wife, or boyfriend and girlfriend in a relationship, the woman is not going to run to the hospital to have a rape kit done. Even if she did, what exactly would that prove?

Women can sometimes cause small bruises on their body or scratch themselves to try to make it seem like their partner assaulted them. I posted a story in this forum about a woman who did that.
But I agree if the woman has very severe bruising or injuries that she would be unlikely to have caused to herself, then the man should be charged. Of course that would be physical assault. Whether that would be enough evidence to validate the rape accusations might be another matter. (Isn't it theoretically possible her boyfriend did beat her up, but then she lied about him raping her too, just to try to get him in extra legal trouble because she was angry at him and wanted to ruin his reputation by having him get convicted of a rape charge?)

As for "video evidence", we are talking about two people are were already in a sexual relationship.
I doubt there is any video camera going inside the bedroom.

[Puffer Fish]

I would need more evidence.

There is no more evidence.
What exactly do you mean by "more evidence"?

You should probably vote no in the poll then.

[Patrickov]

I vote "yes" because I want to shut the OP up.

Quit whining. I also want to breed and I think if I got my way, two-thirds of whatever I do would be considered as rape, most of them wrongfully so. But it's really the fault of anatomy and biology: Sex is penetrative and women have to bear the new life with their bodies if one of our sperms find his Ms. Right.

Law of Nature is biased against women, and if they want to turn it around so be it. Humanity is already so rotten that this resistance movement is probably a blessing (in disguise)

[Godstud]

Fuck, but you really want people to promote rape... like you do.

Yes. If we assume that a rape actually occurred, it doesn't matter WHEN she left him, only that the crime took place.


If someone stole your car last week but you didn't report it until today, the crime still happened.

If someone punched you in the fucking head today and you didn't report it for a few weeks, you'd still have been assaulted.

If some girl pegged you to the bed and tore your ass open, but you were too embarrassed to tell anyone about it, and didn't report it for a few months, you'd still have been raped, @Puffer Fish. (I suspect this happened to you, which is why you hate women so much)

[pugsville]

A woman claims that her boyfriend she was with raped her. However, multiple witnesses claim they saw the two together at a party the day after the alleged "rape" took place, and the two were talking to each other and acting normal, like a typical couple.

You are on a jury. Would you be willing to find the man guilty of "rape"?


I know that hypothetical may sound totally absurd to some of you, but in this day and age of Feminism, there are many people who seem to believe the man should still be found guilty in that situation. That just because the woman did not immediately leave him does not mean that a "rape" didn't take place.

Did the man have sex with the women without consent is the only question.

If there was no consent then it was rape,

That's it. That;s the definition of rape. Time you learned that and moved on,

[Politics_Observer]

@Puffer Fish

Just don't have sex at all. If you never have sex ever, then nobody will be able to accuse you of rape and possibly get you sent to jail. There you go. That's the solution.

[MistyTiger]

So if he gave her a $500 gift card to the mall, and she decided to shut up and allowed that to placate her, and was then seen at a party enjoying herself with that man, but then later changed her mind and decided she wanted to press charges again, should we convict him of rape?

Or how about if she was initially appeased, but then found out that $500 gift card was a fake and had no credit on it and that's why she wanted to press charges?

Are you trying to ask the most ridiculous questions ever? How old are you, ten years old? OMG.

If a woman acts irrational as in this example, then how would anyone take her seriously at all? In the legal field, we would call this a "leading question" because you are trying to lead toward the answer that YOU want. This is why lawyers and judges object to leading questions, because they have an obvious bias towards opinion, not based on the actual facts and evidence in the case.

Objection! I object, your Honor.

Smart judge says, "Sustained". Next question!

[Patrickov]

Just don't have sex at all. If you never have sex ever, then nobody will be able to accuse you of rape and possibly get you sent to jail. There you go. That's the solution.

That's indeed the hidden agenda.

Human race will go to extinction but if that's bound to happen so be it, and the OP should accept that.

[Politics_Observer]

@Puffer Fish @Patrickov

There is no such thing as cheap sex. You will always pay for it if you get it. One way or another, you will pay. So, if you want to enjoy adult pleasures, then be prepared to pay adult prices for it in some form or fashion. Nothing in this world is free.

[Godstud]

@Patrickov, that's just a dumb conclusion to come to. The human race is not going to go to extinction simply because we see rape as a crime, and that two people might have to consent to having sex with each other.

Dumb fucks like @Puffer Fish, would have you believe that consent is a problem, because they want the freedom to rape who they want, when they want, without repercussions.

[Patrickov]

@Godstud

I just exaggerate the narrative a bit.

As you said, Puffer Fish does not care about women's dignity, so I want him to know that it's what the world has become if that's what he believes, and he should just accept that.

[Godstud]

Well, @Patrickov, this is the "slippery slope" that these people like to use to dismiss things that inconvenience them.

eg. Homosexual marriage will lead to people marrying horses!!! Hasn't happened.

[Patrickov]

Well, this is the "slippery slope" that these people like to use to dismiss things that inconvenience them.

eg. Homosexual marriage will lead to people marrying horses!!! Hasn't happened.

As you may see, I am just anticipating that this slope will be used so I assert that the slope isn't going to change the conclusion.

[Puffer Fish]

Did the man have sex with the women without consent is the only question.

If there was no consent then it was rape,

That's it. That;s the definition of rape. Time you learned that and moved on,

If the woman stayed with him, it suggests that whatever happened (if something even happened) wasn't too terrible, and should not be seen as constituting rape.

It could also be taken as evidence that it is less likely that something even actually happened.

[pugsville]

If the woman stayed with him, it suggests that whatever happened (if something even happened) wasn't too terrible, and should not be seen as constituting rape.

It could also be taken as evidence that it is less likely that something even actually happened.

Only by idiots.

No it not evidence that it was not rape, people are not always rational nor wise. Don't mean that they can be raped with impunity.