lolgaxe wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Having a wet ****** does not imply consent.
And having a dry ****** does not imply lack of consent, either. However, it doesn't really change how the body generally reacts to situations. Not a perfect science, but if you've got suggestions beyond "Well, she said it was rape so it is rape," then by all means I'm open to suggestions.
There are certainly many other criteria used to determine the validity of a rape charge. You know that. Pretending that the sole determination of rape is based on the victim's report for the sake of playing devil's advocate is not really warranted here.
Additionally:
Quote:
Since 1980, California law doesn't require rape victims to prove they resisted or were prevented from resisting because of threats.
http://www.shouselaw.com/rape.html wrote:
11People v. Barnes (1986) 42 Cal.3d 284. ("The court held that the 1980 amendments to the statute defining forcible rape, California Penal Code section 261 PC, deleting references to the victim's resistance, acted to relieve the state of the need to establish resistance as a prerequisite to a rape conviction and released rape complainants from the potentially dangerous burden of resisting an assailant in order to substantiate allegations of forcible rape.")
http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/8928
So evidence of resistance is not required, at least in California. Therefore, it can indeed come down to "she said it was rape" and whether the claim is deemed credible by a judge / jury.