The only way she could prove her case would be for him to say he had sex with her without her consent, or with physical evidence that it were true indépendant of his recollection. (I’m leaving iPhone corrections which provide decorative and useless accents)
They clearly had consensual sex in the form of sleeping nude together. She seems to have admitted such. The specifics of activities thereafter and how well it worked is complete speculation. Wake-up sex is not the most easily remembered, or dissuaded. When I wake up, as a man, with a man, with a morning hardon I just want to pee.
In science you need to pose questions which are falsifiable. You can’t say “ghosts exist” which is essentially unfalsifiable because to make it false you have show simultaneously in all circumstances where ghosts are supposed to appear no ghost appears. You can say ghosts don’t exist, and you have the simple task of documenting one single apparition.
For the accuser, the situation poses jeopardy, since now either the accused is guilty, or the accuser has committed slander.
That’s the ultimate situation as you say. In cases where it is one person’s word against another, presumption of innocence is the winner, slander is the loser.
Thanks yes this is all correct what you wrote here. This simply is a travesty.
The only way she could prove her case would be for him to say he had sex with her without her consent, or with physical evidence that it were true indépendant of his recollection. (I’m leaving iPhone corrections which provide decorative and useless accents)
They clearly had consensual sex in the form of sleeping nude together. She seems to have admitted such. The specifics of activities thereafter and how well it worked is complete speculation. Wake-up sex is not the most easily remembered, or dissuaded. When I wake up, as a man, with a man, with a morning hardon I just want to pee.
In science you need to pose questions which are falsifiable. You can’t say “ghosts exist” which is essentially unfalsifiable because to make it false you have show simultaneously in all circumstances where ghosts are supposed to appear no ghost appears. You can say ghosts don’t exist, and you have the simple task of documenting one single apparition.
For the accuser, the situation poses jeopardy, since now either the accused is guilty, or the accuser has committed slander.
That’s the ultimate situation as you say. In cases where it is one person’s word against another, presumption of innocence is the winner, slander is the loser.
Excellent points.