<p>"I saw a static that between 25 and 33% of US teen have been the sender in sexting. There is a 1 in 4 chance that the girl had photo’d and dsitributed her own genitals in the past. Believe me that will be looked into if there is a civil case.</p>
<p>Same thing about whether the girl was viewed as a popularity seeker, say with the lacross boys. If the girl set up the --at home alone get together and get drunk “party” and invited the boys, it would be consistent with one boys’s report that the girl was ok with what happened that night." - 07dad</p>
<p>“I was addressing that unsupported assumption with statistics.” - 07dad</p>
<p>You were addressing an unsupported assumption with another unsupported assumption. First I’d like to see the source of those statistics. Second, if those statistics are correct, which I doubt, there would be a 75% chance she had not sexted herself prior. It is ridiculous to throw out the possibility of anything occuring because there is a 25% of it when it has not been reported. </p>
<p>And I don’t even want to address this from above:</p>
<p>“If the girl set up the --at home alone get together and get drunk “party” and invited the boys, it would be consistent with one boys’s report that the girl was ok with what happened that night”</p>
<p>How you did the math on this one is beyond me. It is a ■■■■■ like statement.</p>
<p>OhioMom, there’s only one way that last statement makes any sense, and that is if the woman is assumed to give blanket consent for a given evening/event. So under that assumption, if the girl invited boys to a party, that’s consent for anything that any boy might choose to do at any time during the party. Even if she fails to give explicit consent for a specific act, never mind. Even if she says No, never mind. 07DAD is apparently saying that the mere invitation is a Yes which overrides anything that she may say at the party iteself. I don’t see any other way to read it.</p>
<p>In response to LasMa’s comments, I’ll suggest another way to read 07DAD’s post number 285. The way I read the post, he was speculating on how certain matters might be presented by the defense in the event of civil litigation. In other words, he is suggesting ways that a defendant’s lawyer might use certain pieces of evidence to create a particular picture of a plaintiff. The post in question included references to actual cases and various state laws. I did not read this as 07DAD saying that “the mere invitation is a Yes which overrides anything that she may say at the party itself.” Since that is such an indefensible point of view, I would not accuse someone of holding it unless he or she were to say that, exactly. 07DAD has been thought provoking and sometimes bluntly so in this thread. But I really don’t see the justification of hurling such accusations at him.</p>
<p>If your theory is correct, that this is a possible line of attack on the part of the defense, then that’s just as bad. Educated Americans – who ought to know that rape isn’t about sex – should rise up in outrage at the very notion. The discussions of what women should and shouldn’t wear also smack of that kind of thinking. Despite all protests to the contrary, that is blaming the victim.</p>
<p>Whether or not you think people ought to “rise up in outrage at the very notion” of this line of defense, it is a fact that such defenses are made. I don’t agree with them. I don’t think, however, that the mere fact of mentioning that such defenses have been made or might be made is justification for suggesting that 07DAD is a vile person and an apologist for rapists and other sexual predators. It simply does not follow logically, and it’s not civil.</p>
<p>absweetmarie: thanks, but it actually helps me make a point when that becomes the tone and logic of the attack. The more strident the more telling.</p>
<p>LasMa: </p>
<p>Yep, trials are often vicious. Especially where a defense can consist in trying the plaintiff. One example was after a major plane crash. Locally it was called the Delta Defense. Some surviving spouses claimed loss of consortium damages for the death of their spouse in the crash. That measure of damages is to compensate for among other things loss of the sexual services of the other spouse. One line of defense was to attack the claim by showing that the surviving spouse (or the deceased spouse) was having an affair at the time of the spouses death or that the couple had ceased to have or rarely had sex for any and every reason. I heard that every effort was made to turn up homosexuality, impotence or deviance.</p>
<p>Same thing happened in the first unsuccessful lawsuit on breast implants. There had been plaintiffs victory after plaintiffs victory, until the case where the plaintiff was a stripper. Although the medical testimony, etc. was the same as at the previous trial, the jury found for the defendant manufacturer. The defendant repeatedly got the jury to hear about the stripping in every possible form.</p>
<p>If it went to trial on a civil damages claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, the defense very well might work on the idea that none of this became distressful or even objectionable until DS parents got wind of the party. Part of that defense would be looking into all that DS did before, during and after the party and arguing that she set the party up, knew the effect of booze, drank anyhow, wanted these boys to like her, was not that drunk and went along etc., etc. Since the defendant does not have to prove anything, the stink factor alone amy do the trick.</p>
<p>As someone noted about the Judge in the off duty cop case, often women are the hardest on other women. Probably a defendant who wanted to use that defensive strategy would try to get such women on the panel. Even if it did not work on liability, planting the idea of slut might get a greatly reduced damage award.</p>
<p>LasMa–next time you get a summons for jury duty perhaps you will get picked. Lawsuits often turn on bias and/or prejudices, like it or not.</p>
<p>I have been on a jury and although it was a criminal case, there definitely was a prejudice factor. Not stated, but dog-whistling. I think we sorted it out and came to the right decision.</p>
<p>Slut-shaming is unfortunately alive and well. I guess that’s why I react so strongly to the suggestion that a woman’s dress has anything whatsoever to do with being raped. However, I apologize to you and everyone else for my contribution to the tone of this thread.</p>
<p>BTW, 07dad, statistic of teens sending nude or nearly nude is 4%.</p>
<p>“Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project found that 4% of cell-owning teens ages 12-17 say they have sent sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude images or videos of themselves to someone else via text messaging, a practice also known as “sexting”; 15% say they have received such images of someone they know via text message.”</p>
<p>The boys have no money themselves and their parents are not likely responsible for the criminal acts of their children. I can’t see the girl going through the stress of a civil law suit that would be public and probably on TV if Ky allows TVs in the courtroom.</p>
<p>Razor - I would suspect that the camera used to take pictures was part of a smart phone under the parents contract. The girl complained to the boys she wanted the pictures destroyed. They could not have been under any illusion, drunken or otherwise, that she wanted the pictures. That part the pictures – yeah I think there is a conncetion to the parents. Like if your kid is driving your car and does damage.</p>
<p>ETA – but Razor, join with others in the smug assertion that girls can not win in the legal system, that they must not drink with boys, etc or its all on them. I really can not figure you/07dad/etc out – are you</p>
<p>A. ■■■■■
B. Trying to drum up support for more vigoruous enforcement of sexual assault/child pornography laws
C. Honest believer that all sexual assualt problems are caused by girls and it is their problem.</p>
<p>ETA – in many civil cases, material can be held/reviewed in private</p>
<p>kayf, I have never seen a poster make so many assumptions about other people’s post. I have not made any personal attacks on you but you make them on me. Please stop commenting on my posts. It is a waste of my time to response to you baseless thoughts. I am much more interested in what other posters think.</p>
<p>At this point in the conversation, I would like to return to the fact that Savannah had the guts to speak out. I want to celebrate her refusal to be silenced and shamed. They thought they would humiliate her and put her down using the internet, but she turned the tables on them! Hoist by their own petard!!</p>
<p>Well, I’ll add a few additional hopes. I hope that all this also results in parents revisiting the issue of underage drinking and ANY permisive attitude towards this --theirs or their kids, that Kentucky prosecutors follow its existing law on conferring with the complaining witness of the terms of suggested pleas bargains and prosecutors looking very hard into their conflicts of interest when they have a case with a personal connection. I hope SD achieves that. </p>
<p>This isn’t isolated. The recent events in Steubenville, Ohio indicate as such. Teen party, alcohol, social media transmissions. There, however, the event became known to the public at the time, the local prosecutor withdrew because of potential conflicts and a special prosecutor was appointed. The first reports online were that the town was divided over this event. I really think that the issue that underage alcohol plays in these event should not be a point of disagreement. Zero tolerance. IMO the particular type teen assaults that SD and apparently Steubenville exemplify would not have happened if there had been no alcohol.</p>
<p>1,000 students at seven public high schools in southeast Texas is hardly a representative sample of the US teen population and I doubt this study’s veracity. If they are going to do a study, they should do a proper statistical study with a real representative sample!</p>
<p>Do any of you posters think that these 16 year olds (SD and the 2 boys) would have progressed to the situation that happened (clothes off, fingers in vagina, postings of same)if there had been no alcohol involved?</p>
<p>I think it is clear that much more enforcement is needed for child pornography and sexual assualts. The penatly for underage drinking should not be rape. I think parents need to make it clear to their kids that the phones they are providing are not to be used to take pictures of sexual acts with non-consenting persons.</p>
and although it was a criminal case, there definitely was a prejudice factor. Not stated, but dog-whistling. I think we sorted it out and came to the right decision.</p>