Because all teens deserve independent nonjudgmental information about sexuality. Click here for more reasons. And here for even more reasons.
A very strange story about a sexual assault case

Amber Rhea sent me a link to a news story about a very bizarre ruling in a sexual assault case. It is a strange story and I'm wondering if it has been accurately reported. It sounds too awful to be true. If it is being accurately reported, it is beyond outrageous.
Here is what we can know based on the news story:
Melanie Ross alleges that she was sexually assaulted by Daniel Day at his Mercer University fraternity house in 2003. (According to the article, Day comes from a powerful Georgia family. His father is Burke Day, a State Rep and he is of the Days Inn Days.)
Melanie Ross is brought a civil suit against Day because of the assault.
A Bibb County judge ruled in the civil suit that the lacerations she had did not prove rape, and that she needed to provide a list of her sex partners because "only virgins can bring a case for sexual battery in civil court." In addition, she was ordered to pay $150,000 of Day's attorney fees.
Melanie Ross and her lawyer are appealing the ruling.
What we can't know based on the news story:
Why is this case being brought in civil court when it is a criminal matter? Did a prosecutor refuse to bring the case as a criminal matter?
Where does the civil court ruling about virginity and sexual assault being accurately reported, and if so, where does it come from? Is it an ugly artifact of not-so-distant past when rape was essentially a property crime? Is it an accurate interpretation of a bad law, or an inaccurate interpretation of the law?
It is important to note that the Georgia State statutes on sex crimes do not refer to a victim's status as a virgin or not in determining any aspect of the crime of sexual battery. But this case is not being brought in criminal court. It is being brought in civil court, so different rules apply. I'd like to know more about those rules.
I can understand that there might not be enough evidence to prove the offence. What I cannot understand, and what is outrageous, is that her status as a sexually active woman could have anything at all to do with the matter.
Does anybody have additional information about this case?




