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.
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.
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.
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.