Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

In any case here is the facts as I been reading them that made far more sense then what you are tying to sell Firefly.

They had consensus sex and then she got mad when she found out that he been lying to her and file false rape charges. Something she had done in the past to other men.

The charges for real rape was then drop but they then hit him with rape by fraud charges.

Heavy heat is coming down on them as a result and they are trying their best to paint this nonsense in the best possible light just like you are.

Convicted of rape and murder with the aid of false DNA results of all things.


Report alleges crime lab fraud
Scientist is accused of providing false testimony
Tribune Staff Writers

January 14, 2001
E-mail Print Share Text Size chi-010114roscetti
A supervisor at the Illinois State Police crime lab gave false testimony in nine cases, including trials that resulted in wrongful rape convictions of three Chicago men, according to an analysis by a leading forensic expert for a lawsuit against the City of Chicago.

Among the newly examined cases is the highly publicized 1986 rape and murder of Lori Roscetti, a medical student abducted after a night studying at Rush Medical College on the West Side.

Four men were convicted and three of them were sentenced to life in prison. But the report suggests that contrary to testimony provided at two of their trials, none of the men could be linked by blood tests to Roscetti's rape.

The report comes amid increasing scrutiny of the criminal justice system in Illinois and, particularly, in Cook County. Thirteen Death Row inmates have been released in the state, and several other inmates serving prison terms have been released after DNA tests proved their innocence.



The exonerations have highlighted several fissures in the legal system, such as false testimony from witnesses, including jailhouse snitches; police and prosecutorial misconduct; and incompetent defense lawyering.

This report focuses attention on forensic testing, an aspect of the criminal justice system that so far has escaped intense scrutiny and that is supposed to be impartial. Although the report may not exonerate all the defendants whose cases were examined, it suggests that forensic fraud could be a more serious problem than originally believed.

The report was filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Chicago in connection with lawsuits brought by attorneys Kathleen Zellner and David Gleicher on behalf of two of the exonerated men, Billy Wardell and Donald Reynolds. They were convicted of rape in 1988 and cleared in 1997 after DNA tests showed they were innocent.

The report focuses on blood tests on evidence conducted by Pamela Fish when she worked in the Chicago police crime laboratory and before the advent of DNA testing. In 1996, the Illinois State Police took over testing duties for city police, and most of the Chicago crime lab workers transferred to the state crime lab. About two years ago, Fish was promoted to a $75,900-a-year job as chief of the lab's biochemistry section.

The analysis of the cases of the nine defendants showed that "in many of these cases, Ms. Fish misrepresent(ed) the scientific significance of her findings either directly or by omission," according to the report by DNA analyst Dr. Edward Blake and criminalist Alan Keel of Forensic Science Associates of Richmond, Calif.

"The nature of these errors are such that a reasonable investigator, attorney or fact finder would be misled," the report states.

"And always," the report adds, "she offered the opinion most damaging to the defendant."

Fish, 42, who oversees DNA testing conducted at the lab and is responsible for checking the work of about 40 lab workers, referred questions to the state police spokesman. He declined to comment, citing the pending lawsuit.

A spokesman for Cook County State's Atty. Richard Devine, whose office used Fish as a witness, declined to comment because officials had not seen the report.

Devine's spokesman would not say if any investigation of Fish's work was begun after the three men were exonerated.

Greg O'Reilly, an assistant Cook County public defender who represented John Willis, one of the three men wrongfully convicted as a result of Fish's testimony, unearthed the first evidence against Fish three years ago. It showed that in Willis' 1992 trial, Fish said her test results were "inconclusive" when her lab notes showed that tests had excluded Willis as a suspect.

Willis, who had been sentenced to a 100-year prison term, was released and has retained private attorneys to pursue a civil suit. Fish was promoted to her current position just days before the charges against Willis were dropped.

"For two years, the public defender's office has been saying these are serious allegations that need serious investigation," O'Reilly said Friday. "It needs an independent investigation and that means under oath--like they did in Toronto."

The reference was to a similar case of exoneration in Toronto that prompted an investigation and overhaul of Canada's premier center for forensic science. In that case, Guy Paul Morin was convicted of murdering a 9-year-old girl and sentenced to life in prison. After his exoneration, top province officials appointed a special commission to investigate and recommend ways to prevent future miscarriages of justice. The inquiry lasted nearly two years and ultimately turned recommendations into policy.

The analysis of Fish's work was performed as part of the lawsuits against the city, Fish, and others brought on behalf of Wardell and Reynolds, who were wrongfully convicted of raping a University of Illinois student. Both claimed that they had been falsely identified as the woman's assailants, but they were convicted based on the testimony of eyewitness identifications by the victim as well as testimony from Fish.

You're not kidding. I agree with David.

Below is a story containing the court account of this matter and if your version is correct Firefly the judges are lying also. Taking very special note Firefly of this court statement in the sentencing.

However, before us is not a “classic” case of rape — a forceful one. And the complaint that was initially consolidated, which defined actual opposition by the accuser to the actions of the defendant, was amended in the course of proceedings, after hearing her testimony that clarified that [the defendant’s actions] were perpetrated with her consent but that [the consent] was acquired fraudulently in that she relied on his false representation. Specifically: had she not thought that the defendant was a Jewish bachelor who was interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated with him….



http://volokh.com/2010/10/07/israeli-rape-by-fraud-cases/



State v. Kashur, Jerusalem District Court (2010)

[Press accounts suggested that the decision here was apparently the result of a plea bargain; M.Z. alleged that Kashur had forcibly raped her, but Kashur and the prosecution agreed to his pleading guilty to rape by fraud. Other press accounts suggested that Kashur never actually told M.Z. that he was Jewish, but just used a Jewish-sounding nickname. Nonetheless, the court’s account suggests that M.Z. ultimately testified that she did consent, but based on defendant’s fraudulent representation that he was a Jewish bachelor who was interested in a serious romantic relationship; and defendant apparently conceded as much in court. Here is the court’s account. –ed.]

The defendant was convicted, based on his confession to the facts in the amended indictment that were consolidated into the plea bargain after hearing the evidence presented by the accuser, of committing the offense of rape and lewd acts under section 345(a)(2) ….

According to the amended indictment, on the date of September 3, 2008 at 1:00pm, in the building on 12 Hillel Street in Jerusalem ..., the defendant raped M.Z. [the accuser] ... and committed against her lewd acts as detailed below.

The defendant, who is married, fraudulently represented himself to the accuser as a Jewish bachelor who ... was interested in a serious romantic relationship. The defendant proposed that the accuser accompany him into the building and, on the basis of the false representation described, she agreed. The defendant ascended in the elevator with the accuser to the top floor of the building. In the elevator, the defendant groped the accuser, rubbed his penis against her body, lifted her shirt and bra and kissed her breasts. All this was done by the defendant with the consent of the accuser, which was achieved through deception by means of the false presentation.

When they arrived at the top floor of the building, the defendant removed the accuser’s pants and underwear and inserted his penis into her vagina until satisfaction. This too he did with consent of the accuser, who was convinced through fraud and deception to rely on the false representation described above. After the defendant had intercourse with the accuser and committed the lewd acts described, he exited the building and left her naked on the top floor of the building….

At the conclusion of the penalty phase, the prosecuting attorney stressed that the central fact that the defendant left the complainant naked on the top floor of the building illustrates the complex interaction between them that gave rise to this crime. However, the defendant emphasized that these actions were not performed by force.

Nevertheless, the defendant interfered with [M.Z.’s] ability to object by means of misrepresenting the facts of his personal situation — that he was single man interested in a serious relationship. Consequently, the defendant exploited the accuser’s desire for a deep emotional connection, for only on account of this did she agree to have intercourse with him. Therefore, the Probation Service report, with regard to mandatory elements, requests that the defendant be incarcerated for a significant period of time as compensation to the accuser….

There is no dispute that the defendant committed the crime of rape against the accuser, to this he confessed, and on the basis of this he was also convicted in court. It is clear to all, that the we are speaking of one of the most serious crimes in the criminal code, which carries a maximum penalty of extended incarceration and even a minimum prison term of 4 years.... However, before us is not a “classic” case of rape — a forceful one. And the complaint that was initially consolidated, which defined actual opposition by the accuser to the actions of the defendant, was amended in the course of proceedings, after hearing her testimony that clarified that [the defendant’s actions] were perpetrated with her consent but that [the consent] was acquired fraudulently in that she relied on his false representation. Specifically: had she not thought that the defendant was a Jewish bachelor who was interested in a serious romantic relationship, she would not have cooperated with him….

[As to sentencing], one must not forget that the crime of rape committed “on account of” false pretenses is what is being judged here.... I do not think that this is a situation in which to question the imposition of incarceration .... And not only for the maximum [suggested] by the defense in this regard — six months.... It is the obligation of the court to protect the public from sophisticated criminals with slick tongues and sweet lips, for with these tools they pillage innocent victims, imposing a price too heavy to bear — the sanctity of [the victims’] body and spirit. At a time when the basis of trust between people is weak, [and] all the more so when dealing with such intimate and sensitive matter, we are choosing fates. The court must stand forcefully and actively on the side of the victims to protect their interests. Otherwise, they will be exploited, manipulated, deceived, for the [mere] price of an acceptable, symbolic penalty.

It is impossible to know or understand fully how the accuser felt after the defendant exited the building and left her behind, naked, on the top floor…. In committing this [crime], the defendant demonstrated basic human insensitivity toward his victim, as though she was solely a means of satisfying his desires for himself, nothing more....

After deliberating on the considerations of the various punishments and weighing the unique attributes of this case, including the period of detention already served by the defendant — whether behind bars, or in the walls of his home (under electronic monitoring), including, as well, in the circumstances of this matter, those specific reasons that justify a lessening of his punishment — I advise my peers to impose on the defendant the following punishments based on the minimum penalties proscribed by law, most of which will be under suspended sentence, the delineation of which is as follows:

A.... [Eighteen] months in prison, less the days of his [prior] incarceration — October 5, 2008 to November 28, 2008.

B. Thirty months suspended sentence ....

C. Compensation to the accuser in the amount of 10,000 [shekels] to be paid in 10 equal monthly payments ....

[Agreed to by all three judges.]

You would not recognize facts if you tripped over them.

The Israeli woman had filed other sexual assault complaints in the past--and, in some of those cases, her charges were found to be justified and the men were sent to prison. In some of the other cases there was either a lack of evidence or her testimony was inconsistent, but in no instance was she accused of making a false report. There was nothing to suggest she had lied in the past reports. This woman becomes easily confused and emotionally upset under stress, and that can make her statements unreliable and make her a poor witness in court--that is quite different than lying.

In the case in question, the woman's credibility about actually being raped, by force, was never in question. The prosecutor didn't doubt her and there is no indication that the defense attorney doubted her claim that she was raped. The man was arrested, charged with forcible rape, and the trial for that forcible rape was underway when the victim was cross-examined by the defense attorney who began questioning her about her sexual past history. That's when the woman became very emotionally upset, confused, and contradictory--during the trial, a trial which was closed to the public. At that point it was clear that the nature of the defense attorney's questioning was too traumatic for this woman to handle rationally and clearly, and the defense attorney threatened to keep it up. So, despite the evidence of forcible rape, the prosecutor agreed to the plea deal and dropped the forcible rape charge to spare the victim the ordeal and trauma of any more testimony. The defense wanted the plea deal because the man faced a possible conviction on forcible rape.

They settled on a "rape by deception charge" which actually had nothing to do with the rape that had actually occurred. The man had lied to the women about being single and Jewish--so that was about the only other lesser charge that both the prosecutor and defense could agree on. Under that charge, the sex would be regarded as consensual, but would still be considered rape because consent was obtained by deceit, and the prosecutor insisted on prison time even with this plea. It was a ridiculous charge, and that was what created the media problems with this case. It was also an inappropriate charge because the sex that had actually taken place in this case was not consensual--the woman had actually been forcibly raped--so the plea distorted the actual facts of the situation to the disadvantage of the woman who had been victimized. The woman in this case never consented to have sex with this man--and the physical evidence backed up her story of a forcible rape.

The prosecutor had made a very bad plea deal by agreeing to that particular charge of "rape by deception", something he didn't realize until the rapist began shooting his mouth off, giving media interviews claiming the woman "wanted it", the sex was consensual, and that he was being victimized for being an Arab who had impersonated a Jew. The rapist was lying, the prosecutor knew it, and there was nothing the prosecutor could do to correct the lies the man was telling, and the media was repeating, because the court records were still confidential at that time, and the prosecutor had to maintain that confidentiality and could not reveal that evidence of forcible rape actually existed in this case which is why that was the original charge, and he could not reveal it was the victim's emotional inability to handle the stress of the trial that necessitated a plea deal.

So the media continued to run with the story of this poor Arab being victimized by a crazy Israeli woman and the Israeli courts--and none of that was actually true. The prosecutor wasn't insisting on jail time to punish this man for impersonating a Jew, he was insisting on jail time because he knew the man was a rapist. But because the media coverage focused on only what the rapist was reporting--his fabricated version of events--the story became disconnected from reality and that was what was reported around the world. The media helped to create the fantasy that this man was the victim by taking his statements at face value and ignoring the issue of why he had been charged with forcible rape and why that charge was dropped in favor of the plea deal. It wasn't until the court papers became public, and one Israeli newspaper investigated the case, that the whole story about the woman, and her lifelong history of sexual abuse, became known, along with her testimony about the rape in this case, as clearly a forcible rape--a story she never recanted. And it also was clear from her newly revealed testimony that she could not handle the stress of the trial and that's why the plea deal was offered. But, while the initial media stories of the poor Arab man victimized by the Israeli courts got worldwide attention, the updated information on what had actually happened in this case got virtually no notice.

They don't put people in jail in Israel for impersonating Jews and lying to women in order to get them to consent to sex. That's why this story never made sense in the first place. And because it seemed so oddball the media loved it and everyone was talking about it. Except that fabricated version of events was far from the truth of what had actually occurred--which is why it seemed so ludicrous. Only when you understand the truth about what went on with this case does it make sense.

It is really a tragic story about a woman whose sexual abuse began at the hands of her father when she was 6, and continued through the rest of her life, including being forcibly raped by the Arab man who left her bleeding, bruised, and partially naked in the stairwell of a building. And the final abuse heaped on her was done by the legal system, a rapist who trashed her in the media, and worldwide publicity which ridiculed her as the nut who was "raped by deception".

And idiots like you continue to heap abuse on her, even when the facts of this case are better known now. Just read through that long article I posted on the facts of this case--it gives you all the info you need to keep digging into this case.

If you think this "paints this nonsense in the best possible light" you are crazy. It's a horrible situation for this woman, and it reflects badly on the prosecutor who was willing to agree to the ridiculous lesser charge of "rape by deception" in a forcible rape case. It's created worldwide negative publicity for the Israeli courts, which isn't really mitigated by the more complete information about the case.The rapist has unjustifiably become a martyr of sorts, based solely on false information, and his lawyer is now trying to even weasel out of the "rape by deception" charge that he agreed to. This case has been a complete miscarriage of justice for the woman involved--she's been re-victimized on all sides. I really fail to see any positives in this situation. The complete updated story is considerably worse than the original "rape by deception" nonsense that made headlines.

I really know that all of this is much too complex for you to follow. I really don't expect you to understand it. You'll stupidly overly simplify it to your usual "false allegation" crap, despite all the new information that has emerged in this case, because you're not capable of flexibility in your thinking--too much information confuses you, you really can't absorb it.

So, I haven't posted this for you. It's really for other people who might read it--people who remember the original "rape by deception" case and who might be interested in why that ludicrous charge was made and who might appreciate the updated information about the victim and her actual rape--forcible rape--by this man who has pretended to be the victim of the Israeli courts. It's nice to know that men really aren't being thrown into jail in Israel simply for lying to women in order to get sex, for "rape by deception". That really would be ridiculous. But, it's also discomforting to know that a real rape victim has gotten such shabby and unfair treatment at the hands of the Israeli courts and the international media. This story really doesn't have a happy ending--just like the stories of many other rape victims all across the globe. Justice is something that not many rape victims get to see.

This is the woman's testimony regarding her rape. She is clearly describing a non consensual forcible rape.



The description of the sex as consensual occurs only in the plea agreement, because a "rape by deception" charge requires that the sex be consensual. What the woman actually described in her testimony was a forcible rape. The prosecutor has acknowleged that the plea agreement altered the victim's version of events, and he justified relinquishing the element of "force" in order to reach agreement, a a compromise, for the plea.

What the judges were ruling on was the plea agreement--the altered version of events-- and not the woman's testimony.

This woman had been raped--forcibly raped--and not "raped by deception".

Thank u; note that I meant while the rapist was IN
the victim 's house. I hope that was sufficiently clear in my post.





David

I do not care one little bit when this mentally ill woman story came apart or if the DA was of the opinion that he could get a conviction or not on real rape charges at the start of the trial!!!!!!!!!!

Her story did came apart and the court then found she was not rape for real but only rape by fraud and if but for this silly law the man would had walk free and rightly so.

Her so call creditability as a rape victim would had been weak in any court no matter how you spin it oh spin master as a known hooker who had cry rape falsely before and who story fell apart under the pressure of the man defense lawyer.

Firefly I can not wait for the first case in the US where some innocent man is similarly place in prison when a DA fall back on a rape by fraud charge when it can not be proven that a real sexual assault had occur.

Of course this might be harder to do in the US then Israel as our courts do not have the charming history of locking up members of such groups as Arabs for years without even charges being file.

Yes the man have some nerve to complain about his treatment by the Israel justice system however somehow if he had been Jewish I question oh spin master if he would had needed to complain about being lock up on such charges.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/837471-blonde-swedish-woman-made-650-000-in-false-rape-stings-on-british-tourists


Blonde Swedish woman 'made £650,000 in false rape stings on British tourists'

Britons visiting the Greek holiday islands have been warned to be on their guard after it emerged a 'beautiful blonde' Swedish woman raked in £650,000 by making false rape claims against several tourists, it's reported.
Related Tags:rapepoliceclaimstouristsbritons
Holidaymakers on the Greek Island of Kos
The 26-year-old woman has so far evaded the police and Interpol, according to the lawyer representing one of her 'victims'.

Teacher Ross Mitchell went though a 'nightmare' when he was accused of raping the woman after he met her in a bar in Kardamena, a resort in Kos.

Mr Mitchell was held in prison and forced to pay £2,000 bail after the woman claimed he raped her in a hotel room.

The case collapsed however when she fled back to her home country and did not show at court hearings set aside for her claims.

Reports in the Greek media claim the woman is involved in 'organised fraud' and Mr Mitchell's lawyer says he has learned she has made three similar rape claims, earning £666,315 in insurance and compensation.

At least four of her victims are said to be Britons.


Mr Mitchell was said to be 'stunned to learn she was a serial con artist, according to The Daily Telegraph.

His father Les told the paper: "The whole thing was a load of rubbish from start to finish, but the police took it seriously and he ended up in jail."

Greek police admitted there are more false rape claims being made against tourists and blamed the reputation tourists from the UK have of drinking heavily and being sexually active on holiday.

It is understood the woman denies the allegation of making false claims.




Read more: http://www.metro.co.uk/news/837471-blonde-swedish-woman-made-650-000-in-false-rape-stings-on-british-tourists#ixzz14oNNeX8c

http://jezebel.com/5587928/woman-teaches-friend-a-valuable-lesson-with-false-rape-accusations?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+jezebel%2Ffull+%28Jezebel%29

In the most disturbing story of the day, if not the week, a woman was jailed for falsely claiming she was raped — all because her friend wouldn't lend her money for a taxi.

According to the BBC, twenty-two-year-old Leyla Ibrahim decided to "teach a friend a lesson" when that friend refused to lend her cab fare to get back to her home in Cumbria, England. She cut her hair and clothes with scissors, and even gave herself a black eye. Then she told police she'd been raped by two men on her way home; she wouldn't have been walking had it not been for her penny-pinching friend. Authorities actually arrested four men, one of whom was so distraught he tried to hurt himself in jail. Ibrahim's story started to fall apart when police found the scissors she'd used to cut her clothes, and she's now been sentenced to three years in prison. Making the story even more upsetting: Ibrahim is seven months pregnant, meaning she'll probably spend her child's infancy behind bars.

As we and others have written, all too often false rape claims are yet another symptom of rape culture, which shames women for consenting to sex. But sometimes, people are just thoughtless, self-interested jerks — and that seems to be the case here. Judge Paul Batty told Ibrahim, "Every false allegation of rape worsens the plight of those women who have been the victim of such a dreadful crime and makes it harder to prove when a crime really has taken place." And indeed, Ibrahim's false accusation is likely to give more ammunition to those who think women are always making up their rapes. Of course, people can — and do — make false accusations about all crimes, and Ibrahim's assholishness says nothing about the problem of rape as a whole. But we wish she'd thought about the men accused, the money wasted, and the other women whose real pain would be taken less seriously, before she turned a stupid fight about cab fare into a fruitless investigation of rape.

Image via Daily Mail.

Rape Lie Woman Who Injured Herself Jailed In Cumbria [BBC]




Read more: http://jezebel.com/5587928/woman-teaches-friend-a-valuable-lesson-with-false-rape-accusations?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+jezebel%2Ffull+%28Jezebel%29#ixzz14oPqxeBe

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284648/Woman-brutal-rape-story-hide-fact-crashed-boyfriends-car.html?ITO=1490

Woman cried rape to escape driving ban after crashing boyfriend's carBy Fay Schlesinger
Last updated at 10:09 AM on 8th June 2010
Comments (167) Add to My Stories A woman pretended she was the victim of a double rape to escape a driving ban, a court heard.

Sarah Hunter, 30, told police she was dragged from her boyfriend’s car and raped in an alley by two men.

Two specialist officers spent seven hours interviewing her, while forensic teams performed a fingertip search of the alleyway where she said she was attacked.
Sarah Hunter appeared before Coventry Magistrates Court after lying about being raped by two men to avoid being prosecuted over a motoring offence
But Hunter finally admitted she made up the allegation because she was scared of being prosecuted for crashing her boyfriend’s car, which she was not insured to drive.
Her lies wasted 15 hours of police time and left a community distraught at the prospect that two rapists were at large, Coventry Magistrates’ Court heard on Friday.
Hunter, a mother of two, admitted causing wasteful employment of police time - which carries a maximum six-month prison sentence - as well as using a vehicle without insurance and failing to stop after an accident.

The court heard she took her boyfriend’s Vauxhall Astra on April 28, uninsured and without his permission.

Shortly after 3am, she crashed into two parked vehicles in Canley, Coventry, causing £5,000 of damage to the Vauxhall Astra and a Mazda.

But instead of owning up to the accident, Hunter went to a house and told residents she had been dragged from the car before being raped in an alley.

When police and paramedics arrived, she ‘hysterically’ told them the same sob story, the court heard.

Prosecutor Katie Baker told the court: ‘The defendant was noted as being extremely upset and hysterical. She told them she had gone from her mum’s house to the car to get cigarettes when two men approached her and demanded that she get into the vehicle.

‘She described how she was dragged from the car and raped in an alleyway.

‘She said she was dragged back into the vehicle where the collision took place. She said the men ran away and left her.’

The court heard residents living nearby were shocked and disturbed by reports of the rape, amid fears the attackers were still at large.

Miss Baker said: ‘The defendant said she was sorry for her actions and to the officers who dealt with her case.

‘A great deal of time, money and effort was spent. It had a big effect on the community and this has a knock-on effect on victims of genuine rape.’

Last night, Hunter’s own sister condemned her for crying rape.

Annette Perkins, 36, said: ‘Sarah told me that she’d been raped and I was really gutted for her. I couldn’t believe it.

‘She was crying so much and she was hysterical. Now that I know the truth I’m very shocked. I can’t believe she lied so much about something so appalling. For me that’s just wrong.’

Hunter refused to comment at her new-build townhouse in the suburb of Hartshill in Nuneaton, Warwickshire.

Neighbours said she rarely left the house, apart from visiting her boyfriend, known as Dot.

One woman in her 30s, who did not want to be named, said: ‘It’s disgusting what she tried to do. For her to cry rape in an attempt to slime her way out of a motoring charge is appalling.’

Hunter will be sentenced at the end of the month.
Print this article Read later Email to a friend

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284648/Woman-brutal-rape-story-hide-fact-crashed-boyfriends-car.html?ITO=1490#ixzz14oQiOnKw

this is where we end up when women are to be assumed to be honest, when their past is off limits, and when rape is defined as broadly as it now is. I am not aware that using our deeply flawed sex laws to defraud insurance companies is common, but I think it is a commonly used tool for the extortion of money and other benefit from men directly....as in "you give me what I want or else I am going to turn you in for sexual assault".

Hawkeye any comments on this story?


Canada considers "advanced" sexual consent
A court asks: Can a woman agree ahead of time to sex while unconscious, or is it always rape?
By Tracy Clark-Flory

iStockphotoCanada's Supreme Court will begin considering today whether a woman can give "advanced" consent to sex while unconscious. The case involves a 22-year-old Ottawa woman who claims that she was sodomized with a dildo against her will after passing out from consensual asphyxiation. Her common-law spouse, identified as JA in court records, was convicted of sexual assault by a lower court (he was also convicted of domestic abuse on multiple occasions in the past, by the way). Then an appeals court overturned the conviction on the grounds that she had given advanced consent to sex while unconscious. Now the case goes to the country's top court.

The question the court will have to consider is whether the accuser in this case gave explicit "advanced" consent to any and all sexual activity while unconscious. We can't answer that question, because we don't have all the facts. The bigger question at play here is whether a woman can give legally meaningful "advanced" consent to sexual activity while passed out -- whether it be from choking, drinking or lord knows what else. Clearly, the answer the Supreme Court gives will set a profoundly important legal precedent. If the answer is "yes," a man accused of raping a woman who is passed-out-drunk could claim that she gave "advanced" consent to sex by drinking so much and getting into bed with him. Wait, who am I kidding, those arguments are already made all the time! But such a verdict could certainly give those defenses additional legal weight. It could also make for a defense in marital rape cases -- a husband could argue that his wife, being his wife, had given advanced consent. (Again, an already popular argument.)

If the court rules in the negative, some say it will hurt couples' freedom to experiment with kinky sex. The imagined scenario is one where a woman says that she wants her partner to choke her until she passes out and then have sex with her. But the BDSM community subscribes to the mantra "safe, sane, and consensual." Erotic asphyxiation, especially to the point where someone passes out for an extended period, is not safe; it's incredibly dangerous and potentially deadly. Everything in the S&M world -- from safe words to "slave contracts" -- are designed to avoid any uncertainty about consent. In this particular case, the accuser's argument isn't that she consented to being choked and sodomized while unconscious; the argument is that she consented to the former but not the latter. You could just as easily speculate that a conviction in this case would be a reaffirmation of the values of the BDSM community.

Whatever the court decides in this particular case, the most important thing is that it upholds the fact that, as the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund urged in a letter, "a woman has an absolute right to change her mind about consenting to sexual activity at any point during the sexual encounter if she no longer wishes it to take place."

Tracy Clark-Flory is a staff writer at Salon. Follow @tracyclarkflory on Twitter. More Tracy Clark-Flory

I am not reading a single thing "those two" post. I vote them down and voila! they are gone. Neither of them care a single thing about a single victim. They do nothing but want to justify the actions of animals.

I just watched "Taken-The Amber Dubois Story" on 48 Hours Mystery. These rapes and deaths never should have happened. This was a convicted sexual offender WITH AT LEAST 100 PAROLE VIOLATIONS!

This is a serial rapist/killer who himself says, "I will kill. I need to be locked up forever." So why was he walking the streets and able to rape and kill these two girls and try to rape and kill another?



You can read the rest of the article at this link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327556/Amber-Dubois-Chelsea-King-murderer-John-Gardner-warns-I-kill-I-know-I-will.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

You can watch the episode at this link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/48hours/main3410.shtml

this is clearly illegal sex under the theory of consent. While sex between a sleeping/passed out female and a male is common in erotica and common in practice this is one of many varieties of human sexual conduct that the Fireflies of this world desire to criminalize. It is also a part of my personal sexual experience that would be criminalized, as when we were younger my wife very much enjoyed getting woken up by unplanned and unannounced *******. She routinely wore nightgowns with no panties to bed in order to facilitate the process.

It bothers me that couples today are told that such fun is a crime, punishable by the guy with years of jail, and the woman by being relegated to victim in need of "help"

Salon is an online tabloid. Get real, Billy Boy.

I will get real now are you going to address two questions one had you ever gone out drinking with a sexual partner and then had sex with her or him under the influence and second have you ever in placing yourself in the best possible light to a future sexual partner ever not told her/him not one hundred percents of the truth?

If you had done either you are a Firefly/feminist rapist along with most of the rest of us.

They seem to be looking for excuses to have sex with unconscious women.

I wonder if they know that necrophilia is also illegal?

Of course she can, but it is still up to the man to agree.