It has everything to do with her trustworthiness. She lied about an aspect of her allegation and the case was purely "he said she said". Or more accurately "he said she lied".
All of these things are possible, of course. That doesn't make them probable. And all were things she could have said, whether true or false, when asked about it. Yet she chose to lie about not suggesting anal at all, which was quickly found to be not true.
Are you high? All those things are probable. It´s normal to be a neurotic mess about sex. That´s just a fact of life. Most people are really really weird about sex. I´m sure you have noticed?
People who are honest open and straight forward about what they want sexually almost never get laid. It´s the single most unattractive quality in a partner. People like having to work for it, and that implies that all flirting is on some level dishonest. It´s completely standard regarding human sexuality. Flirting is all about showing interest... but not too much interest. Ie lying about how interested one is. You´re creating a double standard for this girl because... why? You desperately want her to have wrongfully accused a guy of rape?
I believe our legal system is ill equipped to deal with rape cases.
You are dodging the question. In what way do you think "our legal system is ill equipped to deal with rape cases"? Because it gives the accused due process and presumption of innocence? Because proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required to convict? Something else?
And what legal system would you prefer instead? One where women are automatically believed even when they are caught in a lie? Or even better, not asked any tough questions so they are not in danger of trapping themselves in lies and inconsistencies when they falsely accuse somebody of rape?
Because sexual consent is given tacitly. Almost nothing we say verbally is of any relevance. Human sexuality and sexual instincts are way older than humanity itself. Sexually we are just a bunch of monkeys. All adults have figured this out already. We take it for a given. Sometimes a no means yes. Sometimes yes means no. It´s all in the body language.
The court system doesn´t give a shit about tacit consent. It´s all about what can be proven. What was said up front. Human sexuality doesn´t work the way our court systems assume it does.
If you would record the rubbish people say on dates all humans would come across as lunatics. Because it´s just a long string of retarded non-sequitors that somehow makes sense to the people involved. For example last time I picked a girl up at a bar we were talking about camping. It was the most boring subject in the universe. We both knew it was. Neither of us gave a shit about camping. I talked in detail about the gear way too slowly and in depth for it to be taken seriously. So we both had a super time, and very quickly we started making out and it ended up naked at my place boning the shit out of each other. I was just teasing her. We both knew it. She knew what I wanted. I knew what she wanted.
At no point did she give me verbal consent. At no point did we discuss the topic of sex. Not once. That doesn´t make it rape. The day after she friended me on Facebook. Not the sort of thing people do with rapists.
The most common thing for rape victims to do is to lie to themselves about the rape.
Lying to themselves is no problem. But when they start to lie to police and other authorities it becomes a big problem for their credibility.
Nobody but the victim is in a position to evaluate whether or not she is telling the truth. This is regardless of any evidence found that speaks against her. It is a problem.
The commonly manage to convince themselves that they were in on it. And blame themselves for being sad about it. Then when the trauma of the event subsides, they can finally come to admit to themselves what happened. It´s standard behaviour for rape victims. So they may say or do things that might make it seem like they weren´t really raped, when they were. For example, like telling someone they weren´t raped.
That' quite convenient. Whatever a woman says or does we must believe her because trauma. And patriarchy.
No, it´s not convenient. It´s a fucking nuisance. It makes even the most basic and straight forward rape case a nightmare to sort out.
A very close friend of mine was a victim of a very brutal rape. I was the one who held her hand through the entire process and finding her therapy and all of that. She couldn´t bring herself to report the rape because she was too traumatised. I even got a written confession from the rapist. So it wouldn´t have been hard for her to press charges. She still couldn´t bring herself to do it. The rape survivor staff were very helpful. They taught me a lot about how this stuff works. Or doesn´t.
Just because she might have really been raped doesn't mean every woman who cries rape is telling the truth. That's why strong protections of the accused are important, both in criminal justice system and during campus tribunals. Unfortunately protections for men in the latter have been dismantled by the Obama decree from 2011.
You on the other hand want men accused of rape punished without evidence just because you know a rape victim. That is very dangerous road you want to take US down!
Ehe... no. All I´ve said is that our modern court system is ill equipped to deal with rape cases. I haven´t come with any solution. I agree with you that we don´t want to give women the power to throw men in jail willy nilly.
Don´t forget that some women are crazy. It´s common for women with borderline to believe they were raped. They truly believe they were raped and will report it as such. Even though they most likely weren´t. To make it worse, women with borderline are often extremely promiscuous. But at the same time we don´t want to give men a free pass to rape women with borderline. It´s a problem.
