"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" This philosophical riddle has elicited both philosophical and scientific answers.
The scientific answer is simple and the answer is: no, there is no sound because sound is sound only when it is perceived by ears.
The philosophical answer is a bit more complex and is based on deductive reasoning. We all know as a fact that when a tree falls and if we are there to hear it, a falling tree will make sound. We will not hear the sound if we arrive at the scene after the tree has fallen. But based on deduction, if you see a fallen tree you could logically say the tree must have made sound when it fell.
This age-old philosophical riddle resonates with sexual assault cases based not on evidence but on allegations. Evidence is the fallen tree (sexual assault). Allegation is the claim of hearing the sound (complainants' claim that Ghomeshi sexually assaulted them).
In Ghomeshi case, defence did not try to prove the tree did not fall. Defence simply did its best to prove that the claim the accusers made of hearing the sound is riddled with inconsistencies. Without saying the tree did not fall, defence tried to prove that the tree actually may not have fallen.
The Crown just presented the accusation as fact and hoped that the judge would believe the tree did fall. The Crown did not, however, present any evidence of the tree falling or even a fallen tree.
Those who resented my OP didn't bother to consider the facts as presented and simply considered the allegation. If allegation is not supported by evidence, then there definitely was no sound and, unless you show a fallen tree, the tree did not fall.
Convictions have to pass the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, even in murder cases where there is the ultimate evidence. You must connect the evidence with the accused without a reasonable doubt. Allegations without evidence are harder still to prove.
Hence my metaphorical exhortation in OP to get consent in writing as a proof positive evidence of consent when you are having sex.
In porn movies the dudes often slap the bum of ladies while doing doggie. I find that a bit too "violent" for my taste and have never done it myself; but I suspect many couple loves it. Can the lady accuse the dude of sexual assault two years down the road? If she wants to she can of course. But without evidence the allegation alone will not produce conviction.
I had an affair with a woman who had some kind of nipple obsession. She liked to nibble on, lick, suck on and bite my nipple. I found it too painful. But I went along with it to make her happy. She wanted me to do the same on her nipples. She'd make me bite on her nipple and suck on them and nibble on them hard with using not just my tongue and lips but also both my upper and lower teeth. I often worried that her nipples would just snap right off her tits and pop right into my mouth. I worried to the point of feeling morbid. But the fact that it was all a sexual act excited me at the same time. Could there be an allegation of sexual assault? The affair has broken, so who knows?
Maybe I should have asked her to consent in writing.
