Dumbledore7 wrote:Valerio wrote:Dumbledore7 wrote:No denying Ronaldo's in the wrong, but the woman's conveniently chosen to do "the right thing" now despite accepting a bribe. Personally I'd rather the woman shuts up and let me enjoy Ronaldo play football while he still can, don't care if they jail him after retirement. Ruining my joy of the sport is an offence in my book so I don't have any respect for the woman either.
Does anyone really think Ronaldo would go to jail in USA?
Nope, just saying I don't care if he does. At worst this case will end with Ronaldo paying an undeserved amount of money to her and closed.
Valerio wrote:MUTU wrote:Valerio wrote:In the end after a sexual intercourse where there is violence aka no bruises
From the case report:That on June 13, 2009, the same day of the sexual assault by Cristiano Ronaldo, the plaintiff submitted to a sexual assault medical examination at the University Medical Center where physical evidence of the sodomy was documented and photographed.
Dude of course!
If you had consensual anal sex and then went to a hospital it's a fact there is a evidence of sodomy
how else would it be?
What I meant was that there were no proofs o physical violence from Ronaldo like bruises or something which could suggest Ronaldo threatened her physically.
If you see a beaten up woman that's obvious it's rape but in a case like hers?
Only her words can differentiate between consesual anal **** and anal rape
That at various times the “team” submitted written questions to Cristiano Ronaldo, and in the answers attributed to Cristiano Ronaldo, he stated:
1. He engaged in sexual intercourse with the plaintiff.
2. “She was laying on the bed. I went from behind”;
3. “She said no and stop several times”;
4. A denial of “anal” penetration; and
5. That plaintiff’s rectal injuries were caused by another person after the plaintiff had vaginal intercourse with him.
RedQueen wrote:The most important part seems to be the questionnaire from Sept 2009 where Ronaldo admitted that she said "no" and "stop it" several times (there's a scan of said page of the questionnaire in the twitter thread). There's also a statement by him that she complained that he forced her. From what I gathered their lawyers are now trying to get the privilege from these documents removed by suing the CR7 team for obstruction of justice and libel (they also requested a criminal investigation into these allegations)m so they can later use these documents in court in a criminal trial for rape (as it stands they can't, because they fall under lawyer/client confidentiality).
As for the "oh, he's so rich and famous, he can't have raped a woman" part - he wouldn't be the first. Rape is not primarily about sexual impulses, but about exerting power over somebody against their will, so a woman's refusal is precisely why the rapist goes through with it.
RedQueen wrote:The most important part seems to be the questionnaire from Sept 2009 where Ronaldo admitted that she said "no" and "stop it" several times (there's a scan of said page of the questionnaire in the twitter thread). There's also a statement by him that she complained that he forced her. From what I gathered their lawyers are now trying to get the privilege from these documents removed by suing the CR7 team for obstruction of justice and libel (they also requested a criminal investigation into these allegations), so they can later use these documents in court in a criminal trial for rape (as it stands they can't, because they fall under lawyer/client confidentiality).
Dumbledore7 wrote:There's no doubt that it's rape and there's no doubt that, technically, it's the right thing to accuse.
But I also still think that accepting bribe to keep it quiet is almost as good as prostitution - if you would have accepted the money before the intercourse as you wouldn't have agreed to otherwise, what's the difference from asking for a compensation after? If it's not acceptable to the point where no amount of money can compensate, then the right thing to do is serve the man some justice. And on top of that changing your mind years later is the most basic mentality if there ever was one. If she was afraid of getting abused by the CR7 fans (which she is today), how is that any different now? Was she just getting ready mentally and legally? Was it because he's in Juventus where the fanbase might be more reasonable than Real or United? Would she still have spoken out now if he were still at Real?
Not that it matters in the court of law because she can and probably *should* do this because rape is wrong, but I can't see any reason for her doing this now other than she's broke.
Rape isn't always about getting laid. It's often about power, control, and "I can do anything" mentality. I can give the definition of the rape - it's a sexual intercourse with a female who is unable to defend herself and without her consent; by force or threat of force or by bringing her into a helpless state. This is what I learned in my law school. It's not going to be the exactly same in USA, but "without her consent" is fundamental in every regulation of this institute,no matter the country or the law family - Anglo - Saxon or the Continental (European) family.MUTU wrote:Dumbledore7 wrote:Yes, I'm tempted to share both of your views, but don't want to get THAT pointy just now. Wanted to know what RedQueen might think about it.
Let me be honest. I wanted it to be rape because I don't like Ronaldo![]()
But when I read that part about anal rape without using a weapon like holding a knife to her throat, I really don't think it's physically possible. Maybe she wanted and then changed her mind halfway through, and maybe he should've stopped immediately but didn't, but that wouldn't constitute rape in my books. She must have 'opened the backdoor and let him in'.
IsiahRashad wrote:Rape isn't always about getting laid. It's often about power, control, and "I can do anything" mentality. I can give the definition of the rape - it's a sexual intercourse with a female who is unable to defend herself and without her consent; by force or threat of force or by bringing her into a helpless state. This is what I learned in my law school. It's not going to be the exactly same in USA, but "without her consent" is fundamental in every regulation of this institute,no matter the country or the law family - Anglo - Saxon or the Continental (European) family.MUTU wrote:Dumbledore7 wrote:Yes, I'm tempted to share both of your views, but don't want to get THAT pointy just now. Wanted to know what RedQueen might think about it.
Let me be honest. I wanted it to be rape because I don't like Ronaldo![]()
But when I read that part about anal rape without using a weapon like holding a knife to her throat, I really don't think it's physically possible. Maybe she wanted and then changed her mind halfway through, and maybe he should've stopped immediately but didn't, but that wouldn't constitute rape in my books. She must have 'opened the backdoor and let him in'.
MUTU wrote:I've never been f**ked in the ass (thankfully), but my ASSUMPTION* is that you can stop penetration by simply stiffening your asshole muscles, thereby making it very difficult to near-impossible for a non-lubricated penis to penetrate. Anyone with experience taking it up there want to share their thoughts?
Users browsing this forum: AhrefsBot [Bot] and 4 guests