"bo_sox...it was a cheap political shot at liberalism. It's what I do. :P"
I know, I just didn't play along ;)
@THM: Stole my line, but I still don't know what party Johnson aligns with.
@red: "On the one hand, it's a perfectly viable strategy for a woman who's about to get raped to be non-violent, wait till it's over, to prevent more harm being done to her body than just the rape, in which case a doctor probably couldn't tell if the sex had been forced upon her or not…. On the other hand, it's a perfectly viable defense strategy for a rapist to say that the non-violence (and the lack of traces of physical violence on the woman's body) simply means the sex was consentual."
On the other other hand, it's perfectly acceptable to say that if a woman - or man I guess - claims that they did not want to partake in the activity, it was essentially a sexual crime. Now, obviously, one must prove that that was the case. However, we have DNA, we have very practical tests to show that the actual sex happened, and so the only thing we can really rely on is the testimony. That's the problem in most of these rape cases.
On the other other other hand, if a man were to ever take advantage of a woman or vice versa without consent, that man should be thrown in the doghouse for the maximum Norwegian sentence of 21 years - nuff said :)
"As for "rape being impossible, because the body shuts down", that's beyond me. It's typically one of the sticks we use in Europe to hit the Yankees with, there still being many people who believe that"
There are many people that still believe that, and unfortunately many of these voices are leading members of two religiously prevalent political parties that are in violation of Roger Williams' ideology of separation of church and state, HOWEVER they are also often in violation of basic anatomical knowledge and keep exacerbating this fact by continuing to screw up the definition of rape time and time again. There are stupid people in Europe too, though on that level I'd honestly hope not.