NationStates Jolt Archive

An article from the Toronto Sun (Canada), October 29 states:

Penis Sized use as defence in trial

Accused claims he's tool large to have committed sexual assault

[Not full article, I've just taken pertinent parts out]

Mischa Beutling has pleaded not guilty to sexual assault. A urologist testified that Beutling's penis is in the top five percent for size in comparison to the doctor's other patients. The urologist showed the court a plastic model of a penis approximating the accused's member at a semi-relaxed state which measured 8.5 inches in length and 6.5 inches in girth. He said a woman who has not given birth might have discomfort or tearing if she had intercourse with a penis that size if she was not sexually aroused.

Crown attorney Bhavna Bhangu scoffed at Beutling's reference to his size as a "two-by-four" saying it was an exaggeration.

The judge is now weighing the evidence.



Well fellow NationState members do you think will this defence will work? Will the judge have a hard time "weighing" the evidence? Will there be young nubile women lined up to hear this trial? And is that huge or what?
I think he will lose.

The newest spinoff of the Chewbacca defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense), I see.:rolleyes:



:D

If the dick don't fit you must aquit!

If the dick don't fit you must aquit!

Damn. Beat me to it.

An article from the Toronto Sun (Canada), October 29 states:

Penis Sized use as defence in trial

Accused claims he's tool large to have committed sexual assault

[Not full article, I've just taken pertinent parts out]

Mischa Beutling has pleaded not guilty to sexual assault. A urologist testified that Beutling's penis is in the top five percent for size in comparison to the doctor's other patients. The urologist showed the court a plastic model of a penis approximating the accused's member at a semi-relaxed state which measured 8.5 inches in length and 6.5 inches in girth. He said a woman who has not given birth might have discomfort or tearing if she had intercourse with a penis that size if she was not sexually aroused.

Crown attorney Bhavna Bhangu scoffed at Beutling's reference to his size as a "two-by-four" saying it was an exaggeration.

The judge is now weighing the evidence.



Well fellow NationState members do you think will this defence will work? Will the judge have a hard time "weighing" the evidence? Will there be young nubile women lined up to hear this trial? And is that huge or what?
I think he will lose.
so what is his claim? that he has been misidentified as the rapist or that the sex he admits to could not possibly have been forced as evidenced by lack of trauma?

I don't really see what the problem is with this defense. I mean it is the same as saying "she couldn't have dumped the body because a person her size could not lift a body that size" If he can find experts that can attest that this is true, then I don't think it is any different than anyone else using thier body as a defense.

slight problem with the thing about the tearing if the girl aint sexually aroused - whilst a victim of such an act would usually hate the experience, her body may still (against her will) respond sexually, meaning that her hole could have widened enough for a large penis to enter her vagina (especially if the attacker stimulated her vagine with his finger firts) without tearing it. so, useless defence. why would you want a defence against something so sick and so horrible that it can (and usually does) affect a person really badly for years, or even for life, after the event has happened?

<snip> why would you want a defence against something so sick and so horrible that it can (and usually does) affect a person really badly for years, or even for life, after the event has happened?
You want a defense so that innocent people don't get convicted.

If the dick don't fit you must aquit!
ROFLMFAO!!!!!!

slight problem with the thing about the tearing if the girl aint sexually aroused - whilst a victim of such an act would usually hate the experience, her body may still (against her will) respond sexually, meaning that her hole could have widened enough for a large penis to enter her vagina (especially if the attacker stimulated her vagine with his finger firts) without tearing it. so, useless defence. why would you want a defence against something so sick and so horrible that it can (and usually does) affect a person really badly for years, or even for life, after the event has happened?
it depends entirely on what she claims happened. some rapes are coerced, some are sudden and violent. there is a possibility that the claim can hold up.

im still waiting for an answer to what his claim really is.

coercing is as bad as forcing - it's a sex act against a person's will, which is wrong

:eek: :eek: I read this and my jaw hit the floor. 6.5 inches around?! I don't see how any woman, even one who had given birth, could accomodate something that big. I wonder what the illustrations from that trial would look like.

coercing is as bad as forcing - it's a sex act against a person's will, which is wrong
of course its bad. but thats not the point. the point is that if she is claiming a rape that was coereced, the size defence is useless. if she is claiming that he grabbed her, tore her clothes off and forced himself inside her, then she should have considerable trauma to show for it. it depends on how the rape was claimed to have occurred.

Olara']:eek: :eek: I read this and my jaw hit the floor. 6.5 inches around?! I don't see how any woman, even one who had given birth, could accomodate something that big. I wonder what the illustrations from that trial would look like.
Mind over matter. It's just the same as having sex with a fat guy....you just have to imagine that it's bearable and somehow you'll keep down the vomit.

Or you just have to be really easy and incredibly loose....

Why don't they just use DNA evidence? Unless he used a condom, but one would imagine that any SENSIBLE female would still find away to extract a DNA sample. Or maybe it was just poor follow-up and a rape kit wasn't administered. Stupid.

Olara']:eek: :eek: I read this and my jaw hit the floor. 6.5 inches around?! I don't see how any woman, even one who had given birth, could accomodate something that big. I wonder what the illustrations from that trial would look like.

From experience, it's not as bad as you think. You just have to be patient and go slow. With some women, it seems like it's just not gonna happen and with some women it's not much of a problem at all. And childbirth does not necessarily make a woman more capable of dealing with this kind of size. I would think the more uncomfortable statistic was the 8.5 inches but let's face it you really don't have to use of all of that.

Simonist']
Or you just have to be really easy and incredibly loose.... This is such a load of crap. 'Loose' women are not really loose physically. It was a term pertaining to their 'morals'. Unless there is serious damage done to the muscles of the vaginal wall, 'loose' does not exist. Otherwise, every woman who had given birth would be walking around with mudflaps. 'Loose' is a myth.

And the muscles of the vaginal wall can stretch enough to pass something the size of a watermelon...believe me, even a 'big' guy is not going to be bigger than that.

Simonist']Why don't they just use DNA evidence? Unless he used a condom, but one would imagine that any SENSIBLE female would still find away to extract a DNA sample.
Yes, I can imagine as I'm being raped, I'm sitting there thinking...now, I need a DNA sample, perhaps I'll store it under my fingernail or something...:rolleyes:

This whole topic is twisted.

Simonist']Mind over matter. It's just the same as having sex with a fat guy....you just have to imagine that it's bearable and somehow you'll keep down the vomit.

Or you just have to be really easy and incredibly loose....

Why don't they just use DNA evidence? Unless he used a condom, but one would imagine that any SENSIBLE female would still find away to extract a DNA sample. Or maybe it was just poor follow-up and a rape kit wasn't administered. Stupid.
I've heard that some guys don't secrete DNA in their semen.

The judge is now weighing the evidence.

The judge has a dick scale??

Yes, I can imagine as I'm being raped, I'm sitting there thinking...now, I need a DNA sample, perhaps I'll store it under my fingernail or something...:rolleyes:
it's not that simple no, but they tell you to scratch the crap out of someone trying to rape you and then head to the hospital immediatly after. It is something that every woman (or man) needs to keep in mind now, so that when it does happen they will remember.

I wasn't thinking about DNA when I was being attacked but I scratched anyway, because it was all I could do to try to get away, I wasn't so much scared as pissed off though, so I don't even try to figure out what I would do if I were someone else, because I never will know.

Olara']:eek: :eek: I read this and my jaw hit the floor. 6.5 inches around?! I don't see how any woman, even one who had given birth, could accomodate something that big. I wonder what the illustrations from that trial would look like.
its not that big.

a coke can, which would be too big, is 8.5 inches around.

its large but nothing that a non-virgin would find horrifying. it would, however, cause damage if it was forcible rape.

I've heard that some guys don't secrete DNA in their semen.
Yeah, sterile ones.

Yeah, sterile ones.
Well, they exist.

Yes, I can imagine as I'm being raped, I'm sitting there thinking...now, I need a DNA sample, perhaps I'll store it under my fingernail or something...:rolleyes:
Oh, I'm sorry, have you ever BEEN in that situation? Do you know all the crap that goes through a girl's mind as she's being taken advantage of by force? Because when it happened to me, the first thing on my mind was finding a way to prove it was him, whether it be simply by scratching him or yanking his hair out.

This is such a load of crap. 'Loose' women are not really loose physically. It was a term pertaining to their 'morals'. Unless there is serious damage done to the muscles of the vaginal wall, 'loose' does not exist. Otherwise, every woman who had given birth would be walking around with mudflaps. 'Loose' is a myth.
Calm down, Sparky, and learn to recognize sarcasm when you see it.

Olara']:eek: :eek: I read this and my jaw hit the floor. 6.5 inches around?! I don't see how any woman, even one who had given birth, could accomodate something that big. I wonder what the illustrations from that trial would look like.
Perimiter not Diamiter

If the dick don't fit you must aquit!
That was the best laugh I've had all day!!:D

Simonist']Oh, I'm sorry, have you ever BEEN in that situation? Do you know all the crap that goes through a girl's mind as she's being taken advantage of by force? Because when it happened to me, the first thing on my mind was finding a way to prove it was him, whether it be simply by scratching him or yanking his hair out. Everyone's going to react differently. If a woman freezes, and totally blanks as to what she should do, it's not because she's not sensible, it's because at that moment, sensible is not an option. If she can get a sample, great. I would really hate the idea that people would think less of her if she didn't. And I'm not answering your initial question.


Simonist']Calm down, Sparky, and learn to recognize sarcasm when you see it. Now it's sarcasm? Convenient.

http://torontosun.com/News/OtherNews/2005/10/29/1283746-sun.html

ok heres the relevant stuff that plator left out...


Mischa Beutling, a second-year engineering student at McMaster University in Hamilton, has pleaded not guilty to sexual assault on a friend who spent the night with him after partying at a Barrie bar during study week in February 2004.

...


Bhangu said the woman was traumatized when Beutling, who is 6-foot-7 and 240 pounds and who she believed was her close friend, forced himself on her.


SO, reading between the lines, the case is this

they spent the night together, sex occurred. SHE says he forced himself on her; HE says it was good clean fun. his "proof" is that his dick is so big that if it was forced, she would have been hurt.

i say its a good fact to bring up in the trial. its not ultimate proof but it can tend to show that the woman is not telling the complete truth if she was indeed not harmed by the incident.

Now it's sarcasm? Convenient.
Yes, just as much as the comment about sleeping with fat people.

Simonist']Yes, just as much as the comment about sleeping with fat people.
Alright *mollified* I'll accept that. *resheathes claws and looks around in embarrasment*

so what is his claim? that he has been misidentified as the rapist or that the sex he admits to could not possibly have been forced as evidenced by lack of trauma?

He says he didn't do it!

why would you want a defence against something so sick and so horrible that it can (and usually does) affect a person really badly for years, or even for life, after the event has happened?

Because you don't want to go to jail. (I know never start a sentence with because)

I would also like to point out that the size quoted was in a semi-relaxed state. It gets bigger apparently. 6.5 isn't ridiculous, but how relaxed was he? Cuz if he gets up there past 7 or so you're getting into the realm of a coke can.

of course its bad. but thats not the point. the point is that if she is claiming a rape that was coereced, the size defence is useless. if she is claiming that he grabbed her, tore her clothes off and forced himself inside her, then she should have considerable trauma to show for it. it depends on how the rape was claimed to have occurred.

she would have considerable trauma however the rape occurred - ask any organisation that supports victims of rape

and are you people not listening? the body can react sexually against the will of the victim, meaning that whilst the victim is hating the event and trying to struggle free, her vagina could still be responding sexually, opening up wide enough for the penis to fit, especially if it was stimulated by the attacker's finger beforehand

and who said that crap about DNA? when someone's experiencing such a traumatic experience, it's not very likely that they're going to be in a healthy enough state of mind to think "oh, better remember this DNA sample" - they're busy concentrating on trying to get the sicko off then trying to "clean" themselves (clean is in speech marks because rape, of course, does not make a person unclean) - failing to get DNA vidence does NOT make a victim a person who is not sensible

and the non-virgin stuff is crap too - rape affects people badly (in most cases), regardless of whether they are a virgin or not - it's not any more or less bad for a virgin

Because you don't want to go to jail. (I know never start a sentence with because)

then he shouldnt have done it. if you cant face the consequences, dont commit the crime. simple as.

He says he didn't do it!
It seems to me, considering the suggestion that they spent the night partying together anyway (and especially that they're friends, so she'd certainly know him) that the "It wasn't me" argument is going to be hard to back up. I think it would be a far better idea to find some evidence that isn't so easily refuted. Unfortunately, the article says nothing about the activities at the end of the evening -- if she went back to her place alone, it could be just as likely that somebody else did it, I suppose.....but if they went back to either place alone, that makes it incredibly rare and suspicious, in my mind, that anybody else could be involved.

This does remind me of my days in court, though.....some people will even stoop to trying to say "She imagined it", despite contrary evidence :eek:

it's not that simple no, but they tell you to scratch the crap out of someone trying to rape you and then head to the hospital immediatly after. It is something that every woman (or man) needs to keep in mind now, so that when it does happen they will remember.

I wasn't thinking about DNA when I was being attacked but I scratched anyway, because it was all I could do to try to get away, I wasn't so much scared as pissed off though, so I don't even try to figure out what I would do if I were someone else, because I never will know.

not everyone has heard that advice. and like someone else said, everyone reacts differently. www.rapecrisis.co.uk

This whole thread became pointless on the first page since the whole link wasn't posted before debate began.

she would have considerable trauma however the rape occurred - ask any organisation that supports victims of rape

I think they were referring to physical trauma and you appear to be agreeing with them below. I happen to disagree.

and are you people not listening? the body can react sexually against the will of the victim, meaning that whilst the victim is hating the event and trying to struggle free, her vagina could still be responding sexually, opening up wide enough for the penis to fit, especially if it was stimulated by the attacker's finger beforehand

Depends on the woman. Many women don't respond to stimulus unless they are enjoying it. I'm not referring to orgasm, I'm talking about arousal. However, most rapes, nearly all rapes (so much so that a lack of physical trauma could be considered a defense), have physical trauma evidence. Not all sex does. If there is no evidence of physical trauma, it certainly should be considered in a defense particularly if the defendent is as large as quoted here. Also, we don't know what her story was. If him take his time and stimulating her until she was prepared is inconsistent with her story and consistent with the evidence then she's not likely to get the outcome she is seeking.

and who said that crap about DNA? when someone's experiencing such a traumatic experience, it's not very likely that they're going to be in a healthy enough state of mind to think "oh, better remember this DNA sample" - they're busy concentrating on trying to get the sicko off then trying to "clean" themselves (clean is in speech marks because rape, of course, does not make a person unclean) - failing to get DNA vidence does NOT make a victim a person who is not sensible

and the non-virgin stuff is crap too - rape affects people badly (in most cases), regardless of whether they are a virgin or not - it's not any more or less bad for a virgin

Agreed

Simonist']It seems to me, considering the suggestion that they spent the night partying together anyway (and especially that they're friends, so she'd certainly know him) that the "It wasn't me" argument is going to be hard to back up. I think it would be a far better idea to find some evidence that isn't so easily refuted. Unfortunately, the article says nothing about the activities at the end of the evening -- if she went back to her place alone, it could be just as likely that somebody else did it, I suppose.....but if they went back to either place alone, that makes it incredibly rare and suspicious, in my mind, that anybody else could be involved.

This does remind me of my days in court, though.....some people will even stoop to trying to say "She imagined it", despite contrary evidence :eek:

Read the article. It appears he is arguing it was consensual not that he didn't have sex with her.

and who said that crap about DNA? when someone's experiencing such a traumatic experience, it's not very likely that they're going to be in a healthy enough state of mind to think "oh, better remember this DNA sample" - they're busy concentrating on trying to get the sicko off then trying to "clean" themselves (clean is in speech marks because rape, of course, does not make a person unclean) - failing to get DNA vidence does NOT make a victim a person who is not sensible
I said "that crap" about DNA. And, in case YOU weren't paying attention, I have been through "such a traumatic experience", so I don't think you're in a very good position to lecture me on how a woman's going to react. I concede the point that not all will react the same, and further concede that there's a chance I acted a tad more rationally than most would. But that doesn't mean that because she didn't do this, I'm calling her stupid. By "sensible" I meant to imply that they'd still be able to keep their wits about them, and it's a sad fact that some people simply don't have the ability to do so in a crisis. Ergo, if somebody is thinking "sensibly", and at all aware of the steps that will need to be taken in the investigation process (another lucky stroke on my part, as I'd studied Criminal Justice as well), they should do all in their power to either prevent the situation or at least take whatever steps they can to assure a conviction.

she would have considerable trauma however the rape occurred - ask any organisation that supports victims of rape

and are you people not listening? the body can react sexually against the will of the victim, meaning that whilst the victim is hating the event and trying to struggle free, her vagina could still be responding sexually, opening up wide enough for the penis to fit, especially if it was stimulated by the attacker's finger beforehand

and who said that crap about DNA? when someone's experiencing such a traumatic experience, it's not very likely that they're going to be in a healthy enough state of mind to think "oh, better remember this DNA sample" - they're busy concentrating on trying to get the sicko off then trying to "clean" themselves (clean is in speech marks because rape, of course, does not make a person unclean) - failing to get DNA vidence does NOT make a victim a person who is not sensible

and the non-virgin stuff is crap too - rape affects people badly (in most cases), regardless of whether they are a virgin or not - it's not any more or less bad for a virgin
i dont mean mental trauma, i mean physical trauma. if he forced himself on her in a brutal manner she would NOT automatically relax enough to allow him easy entry. she would be HURT and that damage would be easily seen by a doctor.

that is the essence of his defense.

we dont have details of her testimony as to how the sex occurred. therefore we cant judge if the "im too big" defense destroys her testimony or is irrelevant to it.

not everyone has heard that advice. and like someone else said, everyone reacts differently. www.rapecrisis.co.uk
and that is why I said that I wouldn't even try to figure out what I would do if I was someone else.

Read the article. It appears he is arguing it was consensual not that he didn't have sex with her.
I did read the article -- I was responding to the post that stated the man was claiming he didn't do it. Sorry if that was unclear.

then he shouldnt have done it. if you cant face the consequences, dont commit the crime. simple as.
But he says he didn't do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

Simonist']I said "that crap" about DNA. And, in case YOU weren't paying attention, I have been through "such a traumatic experience", so I don't think you're in a very good position to lecture me on how a woman's going to react. I concede the point that not all will react the same, and further concede that there's a chance I acted a tad more rationally than most would. But that doesn't mean that because she didn't do this, I'm calling her stupid. By "sensible" I meant to imply that they'd still be able to keep their wits about them, and it's a sad fact that some people simply don't have the ability to do so in a crisis. Ergo, if somebody is thinking "sensibly", and at all aware of the steps that will need to be taken in the investigation process (another lucky stroke on my part, as I'd studied Criminal Justice as well), they should do all in their power to either prevent the situation or at least take whatever steps they can to assure a conviction.

DNA evidence is pointless here anyway. He admits to having sex with her and she knows who her attacker is. The question is whether it was forced or not and that doesn't come down to DNA.

DNA evidence is pointless here anyway. He admits to having sex with her and she knows who her attacker is. The question is whether it was forced or not and that doesn't come down to DNA.
But I made the DNA point before the full article was posted, and the original post didn't really say anything helpful as to whether or not he agreed to the allegations that they had been sexually involved. So whether or not my original point has been rendered useless by whomever (thankfully) posted a link to the article, as long as people keep trying to poke holes in it, it stays sadly somewhat relevant to the topic.

then he shouldnt have done it. if you cant face the consequences, dont commit the crime. simple as.

Yes, but we have these pesky little things called trials to figure out if he did it. In those, you provide a defense. You assume he did it like no one has ever been wrongly accused. If he didn't commit a crime, as he claims, that shouldn't he provide a defense?

Yes, it would be nice to live in a society where only the guilty are accused but because we don't people provide defenses.

Simonist']I did read the article -- I was responding to the post that stated the man was claiming he didn't do it. Sorry if that was unclear.

Yes, Plator was saying he says he didn't commit rape, he had sex. Plator is the OP and read the article.

EDIT: Actually given the wording of your question, Plator's response was not very clear.

But he says he didn't do it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:
the article doesnt say that.

all it says is that he thinks he is too big for it to have been sexual assault.

Yes, but will the evidence stand up in court?

can't believe no one's said that yet.

Yes, but will the evidence stand up in court?

can't believe no one's said that yet.
Well, though the defense that they have erected is hardly an impotent one, I believe that he has every chance of making it through, provided he doesn't erupt at trial. However, I won't say he is screwed until we are closer to the climax of the trial.
:p

Well, though the defense that they have erected is hardly an impotent one, I believe that he has every chance of making it through, provided he doesn't erupt at trial. However, I won't say he is screwed until we are closer to the climax of the trial.
:p
You just couldn't resist, could you? :rolleyes:

We need to make certain threads Fiddlebottoms-safe. Electric sockets, too, for good measure.

I think they were referring to physical trauma and you appear to be agreeing with them below. I happen to disagree.



Depends on the woman. Many women don't respond to stimulus unless they are enjoying it. I'm not referring to orgasm, I'm talking about arousal. However, most rapes, nearly all rapes (so much so that a lack of physical trauma could be considered a defense), have physical trauma evidence. Not all sex does. If there is no evidence of physical trauma, it certainly should be considered in a defense particularly if the defendent is as large as quoted here. Also, we don't know what her story was. If him take his time and stimulating her until she was prepared is inconsistent with her story and consistent with the evidence then she's not likely to get the outcome she is seeking.



Agreed

Many women do respond to stimulus even if they aren't enjoying it. many don't. there's no either/or and no "the majority..." - like i said before, different people respond differently

Well, though the defense that they have erected is hardly an impotent one, I believe that he has every chance of making it through, provided he doesn't erupt at trial. However, I won't say he is screwed until we are closer to the climax of the trial.
:p

The thrust of your statement hit it right on the head. I caution though, that rash judgements at this point are premature. It could get sticky if we rush and we might end up with egg on our chin.

Simonist']I said "that crap" about DNA. And, in case YOU weren't paying attention, I have been through "such a traumatic experience", so I don't think you're in a very good position to lecture me on how a woman's going to react. I concede the point that not all will react the same, and further concede that there's a chance I acted a tad more rationally than most would. But that doesn't mean that because she didn't do this, I'm calling her stupid. By "sensible" I meant to imply that they'd still be able to keep their wits about them, and it's a sad fact that some people simply don't have the ability to do so in a crisis. Ergo, if somebody is thinking "sensibly", and at all aware of the steps that will need to be taken in the investigation process (another lucky stroke on my part, as I'd studied Criminal Justice as well), they should do all in their power to either prevent the situation or at least take whatever steps they can to assure a conviction.

you may have been through a traumatic experience, but so have lots of people, and like i've said more than once, and like someone else backed up, different people respond in different ways. what you appeared to be saying (and i'm not the only person who said this) was that a person was not sensible of they did not get DNA evidence, and i stand by my assertion that you are wrong (if that is what you meant), because many victims would be concentrating more on getting the attacker away and then scrubbing themselves because, wrong as this is since it is never the fault of the victim, they feel ahsmaed and "unclean" (of course what they did was not shameful though, it was the attacker's actions that were shameful, but unfortunately it seems we still live in a society (the society of the world in general) where victims are blamed for what happened, in the case of attacks that involve some unwanted sexual element anyway). When someone is faced with such a harrowing experience, being logical doesn't necessarilly come into their thoughts (though of course, in some cases it does - but not all, and that does not make the victim any better or worse a person, just as the attack doesn't)

Simonist']You just couldn't resist, could you? :rolleyes:
*Points at Gymoor*
Its his fault! He made me do it!
I don't really see how you could blame me for it, this whole thread is like a challenge for the juvenile.
Simonist']We need to make certain threads Fiddlebottoms-safe. Electric sockets, too, for good measure.
Electric sockets:confused: . . .
Wait, do you mean the floor level paper clip holding slots? Oh those are easy to use, I still have a slight problem with losing the feeling in my arm afterward though.

From the article itself:
He said a woman who has not given birth might have discomfort or tearing if she had intercourse with a penis that size, especially if she was not sexually aroused.
(emphasis is mine)

This testimony isn't certain and that's why I think it won't work. In fact the witness says the result could range from "discomfort" to "tearing". Add to that the variable of arousal and there is even more ambiguity. The victim was not questioned in the direction of this size defence which is slightly odd. I'm sure the whole thing is hardly black and white to decide, but the lack of abolutes in the defence makes it much harder to determine what is or isn't beyond a reasonable doubt.

you may have been through a traumatic experience, but so have lots of people, and like i've said more than once, and like someone else backed up, different people respond in different ways. what you appeared to be saying (and i'm not the only person who said this) was that a person was not sensible of they did not get DNA evidence, and i stand by my assertion that you are wrong (if that is what you meant), because many victims would be concentrating more on getting the attacker away and then scrubbing themselves because, wrong as this is since it is never the fault of the victim, they feel ahsmaed and "unclean" (of course what they did was not shameful though, it was the attacker's actions that were shameful, but unfortunately it seems we still live in a society (the society of the world in general) where victims are blamed for what happened, in the case of attacks that involve some unwanted sexual element anyway). When someone is faced with such a harrowing experience, being logical doesn't necessarilly come into their thoughts (though of course, in some cases it does - but not all, and that does not make the victim any better or worse a person, just as the attack doesn't)
Once again, I offer that you don't appear to be reading most of what I write, thereby making this entire argument ridiculous and really starting to get on my nerves. You serve no purpose if you're going to continually refuse my statements and stick to your original, though flawed, notion of what you THOUGHT I meant, which of course was wrong.

Simonist']Once again, I offer that you don't appear to be reading most of what I write, thereby making this entire argument ridiculous and really starting to get on my nerves. You serve no purpose if you're going to continually refuse my statements and stick to your original, though flawed, notion of what you THOUGHT I meant, which of course was wrong.

Maybe she was wrong about what she 'thought' you said. Let's examine.

Simonist']Unless he used a condom, but one would imagine that any SENSIBLE female would still find away to extract a DNA sample.

Nope. You said. What you meant to say, I think, was, "I misspoke when I said this and what I really meant to say was..." Unless of course, you simply can't admit the misunderstanding is completely your fault as evidenced by the number of poster that reached the exact same conclusion about your poorly-written post. You even made a point to capitalize the word sensible. You can't much support the case that this is her being unreasonable.

I'd aquit him. With a penis that size there is no way there wouldn't be trauma of some sought. Sorry guys, but just because rape is horrible doesn't mean anyone we accuse is guilty.

I'd aquit him. With a penis that size there is no way there wouldn't be trauma of some sought. Sorry guys, but just because rape is horrible doesn't mean anyone we accuse is guilty.
NO! You're wrong, the only people who would ever lie about sex are evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, nasty men!
Alleged rape victims are delicate and pure to the fullest extent, like angels descended unto earth.
But with more sex and crying, obviously.

Maybe she was wrong about what she 'thought' you said. Let's examine.

Nope. You said. What you meant to say, I think, was, "I misspoke when I said this and what I really meant to say was..." Unless of course, you simply can't admit the misunderstanding is completely your fault as evidenced by the number of poster that reached the exact same conclusion about your poorly-written post.
I would agree, were it not for the previous attempts to inform her of what I was getting at. Despite my clarification, she's still sticking with this idea of "OMG u so meen!" and assuming that I'm holding all women to my standard, which I'm not, because I know that, unfortunate though it may be, not all women are properly informed on the best tactics in that situation.

Alleged rape victims are delicate and pure to the fullest extent, like angels descended unto earth.
But with more sex and crying, obviously.
....Once in awhile, I think I maybe don't read your post correctly, or maybe skipped a word or two. And every time that happens I re-read it.....and come to the conclusion that you, sir, are a little on the twisted side.
Go play with the floor-level paperclip slots.

I think it is certainly strong evidence and I would accept it as such if I were a juror. Whether he will go free or not, I dont know, we really don't know much about the case do we? This is just one piece of evidence, you really have to weigh all the evidence to make a decision.

Simonist']....Once in awhile, I think I maybe don't read your post correctly, or maybe skipped a word or two. And every time that happens I re-read it.....and come to the conclusion that you, sir, are a little on the twisted side.
Go play with the floor-level paperclip slots.
Why do you think I still have that Greed guy's quote from months and months ago? And you say twisted like its a bad thing, a twist of lemon is an amazing thing that makes any drink better.

Why do you think I still have that Greed guy's quote from months and months ago? And you say twisted like its a bad thing, a twist of lemon is an amazing thing that makes any drink better.
I'll twist your lemon......

I'm out, I've got a date tonight and then I'll be in the hospital the next few days :( . Send me some emails, if you guys feel up to it....it would make me SO much happier

Adieu :fluffle:

Olara']:eek: :eek: I read this and my jaw hit the floor. 6.5 inches around?! I don't see how any woman, even one who had given birth, could accomodate something that big. I wonder what the illustrations from that trial would look like.

Perimiter not Diamiter

circumference not perimiter, a penis isn't a polygon, it's a cylinder, the measure of the girth of a cylinder is refered to as circumference, perimiter is the distance around a 2 diminsinal polygon

-CFH

Simonist']I'll twist your lemon......

I'm out, I've got a date tonight and then I'll be in the hospital the next few days :( . Send me some emails, if you guys feel up to it....it would make me SO much happier

Adieu :fluffle:
I'll send yo subliminal messages to corrupt your pure and innocent mind, k?
Oh, and "I'll twist your lemon......" probably the hawtest thing I have heard all day, and I have spent most of today learning how to speak German and settling bank matters.

Simonist']It seems to me, considering the suggestion that they spent the night partying together anyway (and especially that they're friends, so she'd certainly know him) that the "It wasn't me" argument is going to be hard to back up. I think it would be a far better idea to find some evidence that isn't so easily refuted. Unfortunately, the article says nothing about the activities at the end of the evening -- if she went back to her place alone, it could be just as likely that somebody else did it, I suppose.....but if they went back to either place alone, that makes it incredibly rare and suspicious, in my mind, that anybody else could be involved.

This does remind me of my days in court, though.....some people will even stoop to trying to say "She imagined it", despite contrary evidence :eek:

Not to offend anyone who has been raped or assaulted but this could be a case of a girl who had consensual sex then regretted it for some reason and decided to screw the dude in a legal sense.

NO! You're wrong, the only people who would ever lie about sex are evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, evil, nasty men!
Alleged rape victims are delicate and pure to the fullest extent, like angels descended unto earth.
But with more sex and crying, obviously.
Does that mean people who won't admit they masturbate are evil?????

Simonist']I'll twist your lemon......

I'm out, I've got a date tonight and then I'll be in the hospital the next few days :( . Send me some emails, if you guys feel up to it....it would make me SO much happier

Adieu :fluffle:
Be thinking of you. Hope your stay helps get rid of that state of feminine rage!

Does that mean people who won't admit they masturbate are evil?????
Well, Catholic priests don't admit to it and look at what they're known for.

Well, Catholic priests don't admit to it and look at what they're known for.
Wearing funny robes?
They may violate the laws of fashion and look like tools, but that is hardly evil.
Yes, I know what you were talking about. But Catholic-molestation jokes are getting old

Wearing funny robes?
They may violate the laws of fashion and look like tools, but that is hardly evil.
Yes, I know what you were talking about. But Catholic-molestation jokes are getting old
Judges wear funny robes too and I've never had a judge rule in my favor, so funny robes = evil.

Judges wear funny robes too and I've never had a judge rule in my favor, so funny robes = evil.
Judges are generall jerks, aren't they?
I could swear that there is a precedent for "Bitch got uppity" to be used as an affirmative defence in murder trials before.

Okay women of NationStates does size matter?????????????????

Okay women of NationStates does size matter?????????????????

Start a new thread, don't resurrect an old one.

Start a new thread, don't resurrect an old one.
pppppppwwwwwwfffffffffff:gundge:

I'd aquit him. With a penis that size there is no way there wouldn't be trauma of some sought. Sorry guys, but just because rape is horrible doesn't mean anyone we accuse is guilty.

And how exactly are you going to measure that trauma? And if you mean physical trauma, refer to my previous post about the vagina being able to respond sexually even if a person doesn't want it to. Which means it's perfectly logical that he could have done it without causing any visible ruptions in her vagina. As to whether he's guilty or not, that boils down to figuring out whether the woman consented or not.

And yeh some people falsely accuse people of rape, but the percentage that are lying is really small, and they're usually found out (in Britian anyway) before the case is even sent to the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) for a decision on whether to prosecute the alleged attacker.

And like someone else said, the penis size "evidence" is only one piece of evidence. There may be plenty more which show that the attacker did at least do something sexual without the woman's consent, even IF (and I emphasise, IF) he didn't rape her.

Holy grave digging, Batman.

String says - I'ts good to be back!

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/threadnecro2.jpg

This is such a load of crap. 'Loose' women are not really loose physically. It was a term pertaining to their 'morals'. Unless there is serious damage done to the muscles of the vaginal wall, 'loose' does not exist. Otherwise, every woman who had given birth would be walking around with mudflaps. 'Loose' is a myth.

And the muscles of the vaginal wall can stretch enough to pass something the size of a watermelon...believe me, even a 'big' guy is not going to be bigger than that.


Yes, I can imagine as I'm being raped, I'm sitting there thinking...now, I need a DNA sample, perhaps I'll store it under my fingernail or something...:rolleyes:

ya or a cotten swab after the fact?

Some girls are "looser" just built differently, just like guys. Sex probably does make some difference in that a women would be a little less anxious and therefore less tight I guess..

As stated more than once, and research it if you don't believe it, a woman can be "loose" regardless of anxiety, due to stimulation. That's all that's required - she could be hating the experience but her vagina could be responding very differently from how she wants it to respond, due to the stimulation IT (not her) is receiving.

Enough with the gravedigging.

Forgive some of my questions as I refuse to pay $10 to get access to a news article. Please let me know if any of this is explained in the article...

Okay. Let's talk scenarios...

What if...

This girl was spending time with someone that she thought was safe to trust. (This guy was her friend remember.) They go out and get drunk together to blow off some steam from study week.

And then...

1) They get home and she passes out. She would have been in an extremely relaxed state. He would have been able to go through a lot of the fore play without waking her and still getting her aroused, leading to the sex. There is the whole possibility that she came close to waking up during this. It is also possible that being drunk to such an extent that she simply could not make a no sound serious.

Or...

2) They got home, and were making out (I hate that term, it sounds so high school...but) and things were getting pretty heavy. Now, let's add into this that both have been drinking. How intoxicated were they? The intoxication level is going to affect how relaxed her body was and how adamant her decline to go any further sounded. Plus, if things had been going well and she had decided to stop, she would possibly have been in a state of full arousel.

The point really comes to this: She says rape, he says consensual. It sounds like at some point she said stop or no and he didn't. Sorry guys, but anytime anybody says the ride is over, it's done. No matter how vehemenantly it is stated, even a whispered no means end of the line.

Forgive some of my questions as I refuse to pay $10 to get access to a news article. Please let me know if any of this is explained in the article...

Okay. Let's talk scenarios...

What if...

This girl was spending time with someone that she thought was safe to trust. (This guy was her friend remember.) They go out and get drunk together to blow off some steam from study week.

And then...

1) They get home and she passes out. She would have been in an extremely relaxed state. He would have been able to go through a lot of the fore play without waking her and still getting her aroused, leading to the sex. There is the whole possibility that she came close to waking up during this. It is also possible that being drunk to such an extent that she simply could not make a no sound serious.

Or...

2) They got home, and were making out (I hate that term, it sounds so high school...but) and things were getting pretty heavy. Now, let's add into this that both have been drinking. How intoxicated were they? The intoxication level is going to affect how relaxed her body was and how adamant her decline to go any further sounded. Plus, if things had been going well and she had decided to stop, she would possibly have been in a state of full arousel.

The point really comes to this: She says rape, he says consensual. It sounds like at some point she said stop or no and he didn't. Sorry guys, but anytime anybody says the ride is over, it's done. No matter how vehemenantly it is stated, even a whispered no means end of the line.

I don't think you can assume she said no, she says she did, he says she didn't.

I don't think you can assume she said no, she says she did, he says she didn't.

But even the lack of a "no" isn't consent. Obviously if someone looks like they don't want something to happen, they don't want something to happen.

But even the lack of a "no" isn't consent. Obviously if someone looks like they don't want something to happen, they don't want something to happen.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/threadnecro2.jpg

slight problem with the thing about the tearing if the girl aint sexually aroused - whilst a victim of such an act would usually hate the experience, her body may still (against her will) respond sexually, meaning that her hole could have widened enough for a large penis to enter her vagina (especially if the attacker stimulated her vagine with his finger firts) without tearing it. so, useless defence. why would you want a defence against something so sick and so horrible that it can (and usually does) affect a person really badly for years, or even for life, after the event has happened?

Not to mention a woman is still entitled to refuse intercourse even if the guy thinks that a sufficient amount of foreplay has gone by that she owes it to him. Just because a woman got physically aroused doesn't mean that she planned on "going all the way." I don't know what the situation was, but I'm sure that any number of "date rape" cases were instances of a woman enjoying herself right up until the point that the guy was being more than simply assertive.