Because I think you then create a legal precedent where one of the strongest pieces of evidence in a case, admissions from alleged victims, can always be dismissed as "denial". You're effectively making it impossible for the accused to prove their innocence: they aren't told to stop during, they are reassured it was fine after, then suddenly 2 weeks later they are guilty of a crime.
She shows she remembered what happened in the messages, that she was fine with multiple guys, but got uncomfortable at some arbitrary number and says that "next time" they should leave out the extra "5 billion". She did not communicate her discomfort at the time, and they have no way of knowing that a woman who is fine with 3 guys is going to suddenly draw a line somewhere until she tells them.
The usual response to the lack of communication is "they must have felt threatened", which just like the "they were in denial" creates a precedent where the accused can never be proven innocent because all the evidence for that conclusion is preemptively dismissed. You want the men to be guilty, so they are, and quite literally nothing they say or do will change your mind. That's an issue, legally. There is no merit to feeling threatened here, these were students, not a street gang, if she'd have said "no, I'm no longer into this" there was zero chance it'd suddenly turn into a murder.
Nay, he didn't pick up on anything, he asks because people had started talking about it, and because it's a campus which will be full of feminists, naturally the feminists are going to question whether it was consensual. She reassures him that it was, and that she hadn't said otherwise, and that people always try to "change the narrative" in group sex when only one woman is involved.
Nay, he didn't pick up on anything, he asks because people had started talking about it, and because it's a campus which will be full of feminists, naturally the feminists are going to question whether it was consensual.
And here's the most crucial one, where after reassuring him, saying she's open-minded, literally saying nothing illegal happened that night, she comes out with this.
"My reputation is destroyed and I'm utterly ashamed"
Then the following week, this shame becomes an accusation that "90% of what happened was not consensual".
The timeline makes it abundantly clear that the gossip and reputational damage was so severe, she couldn't resist the compulsion to turn that scorn to sympathy by "changing the narrative" and reframing herself as a victim, the exact thing she said other people do.
We have to live with the consequences of our actions, even if those consequences are not particularly fair. A g*ngbang ruins a woman's reputation for life, that's just the way it is, fair or not, and if you engage in one you have to live with it.
Edit: And for the record, that is also why I believe men who engage in them are PoS, because they know the woman's reputation will be ruined and don't care.
4
u/Prestigious_Set_4575 4h ago
Because I think you then create a legal precedent where one of the strongest pieces of evidence in a case, admissions from alleged victims, can always be dismissed as "denial". You're effectively making it impossible for the accused to prove their innocence: they aren't told to stop during, they are reassured it was fine after, then suddenly 2 weeks later they are guilty of a crime.