The “women are children” argument rears its head.

Nope. I would never convict.

Then, sweetie, don’t let anyone shove an object in you without knowing what it is. She did. This is regret.

Not English, so don’t care about your law. I’m arguing definitions. This wasn’t rape by any definition that hasn’t been distorted by such legal pandering.

Right, I’m the one thinking clearly consensual sex was rape, simpleton.

Nope, I’m not English thankfully. I can still see this was no matter for the courts. If I were on a jury, there would be no conviction here.

She agreed to have sex with this PERSON. The names are irrelevant.

She gave consent to a PERSON, and had sex wit that PERSON.

It’s so simple it’s stupid, on the part of the “victim”.

Yeah, she did. She went voluntarily into the room and engaged in sex, and like enjoyed it. She had every opportunity to withdraw consent and never did.

I don’t. Any way you slice it, this wasn’t a matter for the law.

Because it’s funny. She had a good time at the time, and no doubt orgasmed, and now she’s trying to claim rape?

Yep. I can hardly wait for such a case to come up.

What rapist. No violence. No non-consent at the time of activities.

Yes, she did in fact consent. She had every opportunity to say “no” but in fact said “yes”.

Not rape.

Could she tell? Did she object? Nope? Then no foul.

What rapist? No violence. No non-consent at the time of activities.

Yeah, it is. Same person, different equipment than advertized.

Yeah, it is. Same person, different equipment than advertized.