How is blanket rejection of evidence of consent by the prosecutor not reflectively understood as an absurd violation of the rights of someone accused?
Let's not kid ourselves, this will negatively impact men 99% of the time. And unless the feminazis manage to make this policy in court too, not just at the prosecutor level, the only result will be to increase the % of not-guilty verdicts. Because prosecutors will have to proceed with cases they know are meritless.
The feminist kangoroo "courts" in the USA universities that are currently getting sued all over the place by male victims of false rape accusations works like that.
How is blanket rejection of evidence of consent by the prosecutor not reflectively understood as an absurd violation
Sexting is not consent. Sexting is a digital exchange of risque messages. That is not consent to sex. Do not fuck a woman just because she sent you a risque message.
If it helps, consider it this way: I interpret receipt of a dick pic to be permission to castrate the imbecile that sent it to me. If your interpretation of sexting being consent because that's how the recipient views it, then you must also agree that my interpretation gives me carte blanche to castrate any man that sends me a dick pic.
So this guidance is in fact not rejecting evidence of consent. There may or may not be sexts. There may or may not be consent. The two are entirely orthogonal.
Anyway, regarding your point...if I can even call it one, it's just a shit smear on the page, but I'll try and bring something coherent out of it.
Men's rights activists advocated for text messages confirming enthusiasm before and after the act as a response to the MeToo movement, because your hateful little cult was too busy worshipping pedophiles to care about such things as due process.
This action is a direct attack on that practice based on flimsy logic that has one sole goal - regain the power that was lost when workplaces went online and you could no longer accuse us of impropriety, because everything is recorded.
First off: Stop accusing people you don't know online of worshipping paedophilia. It makes me feel I'm responding to a 12 year old.
I am responding though because even 12 year olds need to understand that sexting is not consent. Do not fuck anybody without their consent. Do not pretend that cybersex is consent for physical interactions. Do not be stupid. Do not rape.
Also do not be stupid enough to believe that text messages sent prior to meeting someone and having sex with them will save you from a false rape accusation. They won't. Protect yourself better than that.
Well, your movement's leader was Asia Argento. You literally were worshipping a pedophile.
You are obviously a moron making false equivalencies. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a string of messages is proof, compared to worthless claims with no backing.
Nothing will protect you, that's kind of the idea of every action women's groups have ever taken. Can't take a recording for proof, because it won't be accepted - involuntary recording, can claim coercion. Can't use past messages because that's not real consent, handily for your worthless cult of psychotic wannabe Nazis. (Did your side ever explain why your slogan is the title of an essay advocating for male extermination? Actually, probably best you don't bother, because you're perfectly happy lying through your teeth about your motives.)
How is blanket rejection of evidence of consent by the prosecutor not reflectively understood as an absurd violation of the rights of someone accused?
Let's not kid ourselves, this will negatively impact men 99% of the time. And unless the feminazis manage to make this policy in court too, not just at the prosecutor level, the only result will be to increase the % of not-guilty verdicts. Because prosecutors will have to proceed with cases they know are meritless.
The feminist kangoroo "courts" in the USA universities that are currently getting sued all over the place by male victims of false rape accusations works like that.
Sexting is not consent. Sexting is a digital exchange of risque messages. That is not consent to sex. Do not fuck a woman just because she sent you a risque message.
If it helps, consider it this way: I interpret receipt of a dick pic to be permission to castrate the imbecile that sent it to me. If your interpretation of sexting being consent because that's how the recipient views it, then you must also agree that my interpretation gives me carte blanche to castrate any man that sends me a dick pic.
So this guidance is in fact not rejecting evidence of consent. There may or may not be sexts. There may or may not be consent. The two are entirely orthogonal.
Anyway, regarding your point...if I can even call it one, it's just a shit smear on the page, but I'll try and bring something coherent out of it.
Men's rights activists advocated for text messages confirming enthusiasm before and after the act as a response to the MeToo movement, because your hateful little cult was too busy worshipping pedophiles to care about such things as due process.
This action is a direct attack on that practice based on flimsy logic that has one sole goal - regain the power that was lost when workplaces went online and you could no longer accuse us of impropriety, because everything is recorded.
First off: Stop accusing people you don't know online of worshipping paedophilia. It makes me feel I'm responding to a 12 year old.
I am responding though because even 12 year olds need to understand that sexting is not consent. Do not fuck anybody without their consent. Do not pretend that cybersex is consent for physical interactions. Do not be stupid. Do not rape.
Also do not be stupid enough to believe that text messages sent prior to meeting someone and having sex with them will save you from a false rape accusation. They won't. Protect yourself better than that.
Well, your movement's leader was Asia Argento. You literally were worshipping a pedophile.
You are obviously a moron making false equivalencies. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a string of messages is proof, compared to worthless claims with no backing.
Nothing will protect you, that's kind of the idea of every action women's groups have ever taken. Can't take a recording for proof, because it won't be accepted - involuntary recording, can claim coercion. Can't use past messages because that's not real consent, handily for your worthless cult of psychotic wannabe Nazis. (Did your side ever explain why your slogan is the title of an essay advocating for male extermination? Actually, probably best you don't bother, because you're perfectly happy lying through your teeth about your motives.)