Originally Posted by Fran101
I always understood that consent was SAYING YES.
Not "Not saying no"
Lack of negative response or obvious NO should not mean yes.
You bring up a good point.. what about passed out people? drugs? drunk?
Such victim shaming. Ugh.
but we do live in the world where we teach girls over and over and over and over "How to not get raped/Safety tips for parties etc..."
and forget to teach respect, consent, and things like, gee I dunno..NOT RAPING PEOPLE to boys.
again, the passed out, drugs, drunk stuff is all addressed.
and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the overwhelming majority of sex occurs without a "yes-yes" agreement ever taking place.
I can separate the two. I did not read the complete ruling as I was on my phone but I did read most of it and I still dont find how they came to their conclusion.
The prosecution stated she was incapable of communication, therefore she couldn't agree to or object to whatever happened. The defense said she could, as she would bite people to the point of drawing blood and would hit and scratch people, again to the point of drawing blood just because she didn't want them in the room with her. It seems she's able to communicate her intentions.
On the surface this seems terrible. I'm not going to make many guesses on what happened because we actually once again know very little about a case. Yes it seems ridiculous that someone with the mental capacity of a 3 year old had sex forced upon them if that is what happened.
again, not about this case specifically because I know very little, but if you try to prove a rape and have your case hinge on a very narrow definition or "technicality" then one shouldn't be all that surprised that someone is also acquitted by that same narrow definition.