Day of Blogs

This entire fucking comment pissed me off and made me want to gouge out my (or someone else’s . . .) eyes. But the worst part is this:

Acquiaintance [sic] nonviolent rapes with prior sexual history between accused and accuser are nearly impossible to win, though they sometimes are won. Think about it: All of the physical evidence, and much of the circumstantial evidence, supports BOTH the victim’s story AND the accused’s story. The “non rape event” is not only theoretically common, but has actually occurred already.

Question, Mr. Spends His Whole Overly-Long Comment Lamenting How Rape Victims Are Treated Poorly While Simultaneously Approving of That Treatment: why is the circumstantial evidence in a “non-violent rape” (all rape is violent, even if the victim isn’t so much as held down) more compelling when the two parties have previously had consensual sex, as you have argued, versus when they did not?  Because the only explanation I can see for why you consider it less believable for a person to rape a another person with whom they’ve already had consensual sex than one with whom they have not is if you assume that consent once means consent always.

And it fucking doesn’t.  Circumstancial evidence supporting a “non rape event” only exists when there is a strong argument that the accusor provided consent.  And “well, they consented before” is not a strong argument.  Never is, never has been, never will be.