The state of the modern women
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (64)
sorted by:
She got drunk and flirted with a man, invited him to her appartment, kissed him and moaned of pleasure as they undressed and as he fucker her. She blissfully fell asleep next to him. In the morning, the beer-googles were off. ''Oh no.''
Months later, after re-inventing and ''re-contextualizing'' the encounter so many times in her head, fabricating more and more parts of it, dozens of time : ''OH I JUST REALIZED I GOT RAPED.''
Give it a few years and she will ''remember'' she totally had a drink spiked. A few more years, she will ''remember'' the hospital toxicology report confirmed it. And asking for evidence is part of mysoginist rape culture.
This is why people with a brain don't believe women who cry rape months, years, decades later.
If you followed the Ghomeshi trial, the 3 accusers had ''vivid memories'' of things that never happened or weren't there and unfortunately for them, Ghomeshi had truckloads of evidence and never-deleated e-mails and text messages to prove they lied or accidentally made-up fake memories they ended-up sincerely believing after dozens of times re-thinking about them.
Precisely describing objects ( that weren't there ) in the room of Ghomeshi's appartment when ''it happened''. Precisely describing a car that Ghomeshi didn't own at the time. Stuff like that.
These women were heavily coached for the trial, too. The judge ended-up ruling basically : ''Ladies, I really want to believe you, I tried very hard to believe you. But every single thing which could be verrified, you lied or remembered wrong, and two of you had exchanged thousands of messages about Ghomeshi, yet had your lawyer went with the legal argument that multiple independant testimonies painted a pattern of behavior from the accused. There is no way your lawyers didn't ask about prior communications before doing this. So, Not Guilty. I'm so sorry ladies.''.
P.S. : Lady, if you bring a man you barely know back into your home to have sex with him and he dosen't want to put a condom, get a bit assertive and say ''I don't want to have sex without a condom'' or ''NO'' instead of ''condom''. You can bet she said ''condom'' with a question inflection too.
And finally, on a scale of ''LMAO'' to ''she filed a police report for rape'', I rate these a ''LOL''.
You should have to get to know anyone before inviting them inside your home alone, or going into theirs alone. Don't be a retard. Imagine this : you could accidentally touch, kiss or fuck a feminist and get falsely accused of rape 10 years later.
The only reason Ghomeshi got away was that he is a NPR faggot communist. He deserves worse than what happened.
You’re not wrong (because I hate that smarmy faggot) but he still didn’t rape any of those bitches. Including the one from trailer park boys. Ew, no.
Hasn't Canada changed the rules because of this trials. As in: With the new rules Ghomeshi would have been guilty of rape.
Girlwriteswhat covered the trial and the fallout. As far as I remember (couln't be arsed to research it while at work) defendants aren't allowed to point out all the things you described above, anymore. Especially the collusion-part.
[EDIT]And something about not being allowed to introduce evidence in favour of the defendant without sharing that evidence with the prosecution so they can coach the "victims" better[/EDIT]
Yes, Canada now has kangoroo courts with different standarts and special ''education'' to judges for accusations of sexual crimes.
''Education'' such as ''just because the accused can prove via text messages the accuser kept pursuing him for sexual encounters after the alleged rape dosen't mean anything.'' That evidence might also be banned from trial.
Court guidelines to tip-toe around suggestion that the accuser might have wanted it because ''OMG THAT'S SAYING SHE WANTED TO BE RAPED!''.
Basically a presumption of guilt ( they frame it as ''believing victims who come forward'' ) and a re-interpretation of every inconsistency, incorrect/impossible descriptions of events, lie or further pursuing or intimacy by the accuser, as a result of ''trauma''.
So the courts are teaming with the prosecution coaching the accuser... during the trial.
One guy was accused of rape and the medically-documented fact that the accuser was a pathological liar was not allowed to be mentionned at the trial. I think the accused won on appeal overturning his conviction.
All evidence presented in court has to be avaliable to both the prosecution and the defense. That's normal. Well unless you're the feds arguing ''national security'', then the accused sometimes isn't even told what he's accused-of, or shown evidence. ''Trust us bro-judge.''