If it is agreed that sex occurred, but consent is in question, then the woman should be called the plaintiff. If it is known that a rape occurred, but the perpetrator is in question, then she may be called a victim.

I think that she should be called an "alleged vicitm," and he the "alleged perpetrator." That sums it up. Alleged, until anything is proven.

Personally, I think that her judgement sucked. I mean, anyone with an IQ over that of a fence post has to know that celebrities generally take advantage of their status when it comes to fans, especially, it seems, sports stars and musicians. Why on EARTH would you want to risk sleeping with someone who's probably slept with a thousand people, and have to worry about getting something that you might not be able to get rid of?

Again, it comes down to making people take responsibility for their actions. Hell, OJ got away with killing two people because all the jury considered was race. That shouldn't play a part. Celebrity status shouldn't play a part. Unfortunately, all too often, both do, and what we see is some poor shmuck who getting convicted of a crime he didn't commit, and some celebrity who DID do it getting acquitted.

If she's lying, she should be prosecuted. BUT, if he did it, I don't think he should get away with it just because he's famous.

But that's just me. I'm VERY conservative when it comes to sleeping with people. I just don't understand how people can sleep around....


Sidhe