Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #10 - omninickk (09/01/2013) [-]
Then they just do tests on her and find your DNA traces inside her vagina and around the area. Also, where did the 'rapist' go? Don't you think she would expect him to be there as you undid the blindfold?
#12 to #10 - commonlyrare (09/01/2013) [-]
"kicked the rapists ass" she wouldve assumed the rapist ran away or something
User avatar #13 to #12 - omninickk (09/01/2013) [-]
Yeah, fair point. But still, DNA traces, man.
User avatar #27 to #13 - Pryda (09/01/2013) [-]
For a dna test to work they would need someone elses dna to compare it ..
#14 to #13 - commonlyrare (09/01/2013) [-]
dont DNA traces still cost a lot, too much for only a rape? not sure though
User avatar #22 to #14 - animalsgreenberet (09/01/2013) [-]
too much for a rape? uh, that's kinda ****** up dude. rape is a serious thing.
#23 to #22 - commonlyrare (09/01/2013) [-]
yeah, i know, but imagine if they had to pay for DNA traces for every rape victim in detroit? how would that work out?
User avatar #16 to #14 - omninickk (09/01/2013) [-]
You would think that, having been sexually assaulted, you shouldn't have to pay for it. It's like a service that logically SHOULD be provided by the government, just like contraception and abortion services when acceptable. It might cost, but a rape victim shouldn't have to pay for it. If they want to catch a rapist, they have to put money in.
#17 to #16 - commonlyrare (09/01/2013) [-]
i didnt mean the victim should pay, but that the government wouldnt pay for an expensive procedure like that for a common (depending on place) crime
User avatar #20 to #17 - omninickk (09/01/2013) [-]
I don't know how much it costs. However, rape isn't REALLY that common, but I guess I don't have enough knowledge on it to really go into the subject and defend my point. It was only just common sense.
#21 to #20 - commonlyrare (09/01/2013) [-]
point taken. i dont have much knowledge on the topic either and was just giving logical counter argument
User avatar #29 to #21 - cheatmasterjunk (09/02/2013) [-]
That's a very level-headed discussion you're having, but wouldn't you expect the DNA of a woman's husband to be on her vagina anyway?
User avatar #34 to #29 - omninickk (09/02/2013) [-]
But the rape happened BEFORE they were in a relationship and got married.
User avatar #35 to #34 - cheatmasterjunk (09/02/2013) [-]
Since the story ended with them being married I was assuming the discussion started at that point in time, presumably some months later.
User avatar #36 to #35 - omninickk (09/03/2013) [-]
The way I am looking at it is this:

Rape > DNA Test > Relationship > Marriage
#33 to #29 - commonlyrare (09/02/2013) [-]
They only became husband and wife long after the rape. The DNA trace wouldve been done right after, i would expect, so before they even had sex again
 Friends (0)