So, you just happened to pick a prostitute. You just happened to stumble across a class of people who were often held to be unrapable. You just happened to pick a class of people who are women, often vulnerable, and widely despised. And you just happened to do that in a thread where a number of men are attacking not just the credibility of some accusers of Bill Cosby, but also their moral worth.
Right.
You are erroneously assuming that prostitutions sell themselves to anyone and everyone with money in their hand. No so.
A prostitute agrees to perform a specific sex act at a *specific price *with a specific person. This does not imply blanket consent to the public for any and all sex acts at any and all prices. Good grief. Do you apply that same standard to the services you sell? I think not.
I posted this early this morning and it seems everyone missed it so I thought I’d post it again for purposes of nitwit edification.
Now that was some false advertising. 
It was a very poor post that shows a cartoonish understanding of prostitution and the lives of prostitutes.
Heck, according to a lot of MRA types, whores are the only honest women.
Hah! Just noticed a typo. Should read “by definition they are dishonest people”. As it is, it’s amusing that I said by definition they are people. I can’t believe you guys haven’t been busting my chops over it. Probably because you don’t really read posts you know you aren’t going to agree with and just scan 'em for things you think you can argue with. Pretty funny, anyway.
Thinking that something is “unjust” doesn’t make it untrue.
It’s not just a matter of honesty. Even if there is zero correlation between sexual history and honesty (I have no idea about this) the a priori likelihood of an event happening has a bearing on the likelihood that it actually happened.
I don’t know how this is relevant to the question of whether someone who has sex a lot is less believable as to whether she was raped than someone else.
Because the accusation has to be weighed against the alternative, which is (in some cases - and in the case jtgain was discussing) whether there was consensual sex. So the a priori likelihood of consensual sex is relevant.
As an example, suppose there are two guys being accused of sex, with identical levels of evidence against them. Both of these guys admit to the sex but claim it was consensual. One ostensible victim was a prostitute. One was a virgin, possibly a nun. It’s ridiculous to claim that the likelihood that there was consensual sex is the same in both cases, and since the other alternative is rape the likelihood of rape is obviously not the same either.
And therefore a past sexual history is relevant evidence as to whether the woman consented on a particular occasion under discussion. I again ask, why is this even debated, let alone a shocking statement?
So, again, because I’ve had sex more than 99 times, if I say I’ve been raped I’m less credible than someone who has not had sex 99 times?
ISTM that the reason is because there’s a history of defense attorneys trashing women as sluts in order to save their clients, which made a lot of women reluctant to report rapes. In order to correct for this, prior histories have been disallowed in court other than under very limited circumstances. But in general, this history seems to have provoked a backlash against mention even outside of court, and an effort to align reality with a sense of justice.
The likelihood of consensual sex doesn’t matter, because that’s not what’s being asked. There may or may not have been consensual sex – the question is the likelihood of rape. Women can have consensual sex and also be raped (people can have sex more than once in any given period of time unless you’re specifying some extremely strange scenario like "we know somehow that the rape happened between 5 and 5:07 PM, but not who was involved) – whether or not either ostensible victim had consensual sex with either of the accused doesn’t make it more or less likely that they were raped by the accused.
Your response makes no sense. Either it was consensual sex or it was rape. If it was not consensual sex, then it was rape. If it was not rape, then it was consensual sex.
Assuming that sex occurred, then the “likelihood of consensual sex” is the inverse of the likelihood of rape…and very relevant.
Yes, there could have been two instances of sex in a period of time where one was consensual and the other was rape, but that illustrates the climb you are trying to make. When we don’t know the parties or have independent evidence, we make inferences. We can infer that the willingness to have sex the first time makes it less likely the second was rape.
AGAIN, NOT DEFINITIVE, but of all of the people in the world that had sex with someone else one time on a given night, how many of those second encounters were rapes?
You argument seems to be “its possible” and then through sophistry turn that into “it’s just as likely as anything else.”
I agree that this is why the rape shield laws were enacted. However, the “sense of justice” according to whom? Certainly not the poor bastard on trial who has been wrongfully accused. He cannot present very relevant evidence in his defense.
He might have to spend his life in prison so that liberals can warm their hearts that they are protecting false accusers. In any criminal prosecution, it is only fair that if you are going to accuse someone of something, you must be prepared to answer questions about yourself so that the jury can determine your veracity. Taking out the last part leaves the door wide open, and almost encourages false complaints. It was a poor decision to enact those laws, and arguably unconstitutional.
No. Someone can have consensual sex and then someone can be raped. In the same week or same day or even the same evening, with the same person.
No. People can have sex more than once in a given time period.
That’s not a climb. Having sex more than once a day is very, very common. I’ll reiterate – very, very, very common. Incredibly common. And we can’t infer that willingness the first time means it’s more likely to be willing the second. That’s not how consent works.
Not many. But not many of any amount of any given sexual encounters is probably rape, so this doesn’t matter.
It is just as likely as anything else, when discussing consent. Consent one time doesn’t mean that consent another time is more or less likely.
This is just a variation on old-fashioned slut shaming. The myth that some women can’t be raped, because they always say yes. Old-school misogyny.
jtgain, a sum of money is going to leave your possession soon. It will either be because you spend it, or because I knock you down and take it. It will be either commerce or a mugging.
If you report being mugged, should the police investigate how many voluntary purchases you made throughout the week?
Yup. And once again it shows that many conservatives don’t grasp what “consent” means.