|
"Just as rape accusations are false as much as 41% of the time, no doubt the occasional rapist walks free. But given the misandric climate in the judical system, and the rabid hatred of ALL men the 'women's groups' out there have repeatedly demonstrated, what exactly does a man have to do to clear his name when a women files a false accusation after the fact, if intercourse occurred at all? Being found not guilty by a fair trial isn't enough. Is it even possible?
From the article: 'Gender activists criticized the judge for saying the accuser was inappropriately dressed, for accepting detailed testimony on her sexual history and for implying that not saying "no" means sex is consensual.'
So an adult woman who doesn't explicitly say 'no' reserves the right to charge her partner with rape? Where is the adult woman's responsibility here?
Apparently the legal definition of women as irresponsible children who don't even have to indicate their refusal to have sex when they don't consent, or take any sort of responsibility for their conduct continues unabated.
This case is solid proof that anonymity should be extended to the accused as well as the victim, and the ridiculous 'rape shield' laws in the West should cover BOTH the alleged victim and the alleged offender, if there is ever to be any sort of equality in the justice system."
| 
RandomMan writes "Naturally, 'women's groups' are screaming for blood, because some man 'got away' with heterosexual sex, which is always rape, apparently. The fact that he was