The law in most states defines rape or sexual assault, as the penetration of a persons vagina or anus with the penis, hand or other object without consent. This also may include the mouth to penis contact, but not mouth to tongue. French kissing is not rape, though it may be lewd or simple assault.

Consent is critical. Persons who are drugged, unconscious or otherwise lacking the mental capacity for knowing consent cannot consent to the sex act. If a person passes out only to wake up with someone having sex with them, they did not consent and it is rape; not because of what they said when they woke up, but because of what they couldn't say when the act began.

The problem with the yes then no scenario is that once the penetration has occured their cannot be a "penetration" without consent until the initial penetration is completed. That is, a person may consent to one sex act, but not to another later that day, week, etc.

Rape can also be charged multiple times for a single encounter. If a person, without consent, engages in intercourse, then anal sex, then oral sex, he/she may be charged for three distinct crimes of rape. Thus, a person may consent to intercourse, for example, but not to oral sex. If she is forced to against her will, that, under Maryland and probably any other state law would still stand up as rape, because there was no consent prior to penetration. The state could easily charge the person with sexual assault for the separate and specific sexual act to which the other person did not consent to, as that is a separate act of pulling out and then penetrating a different body part. Here, the person's consent to one sex act would only go to his/her credibility over whether they consented to the other sexual act(s).

Also, a person may consent to a sexual act, but not to reckless or intentional acts causing her/him pain or injury. For example, a women may consent to intercourse, without realizing or expecting that the partner will get rough and start hitting, biting, choking or otherwise causing her injury. Though not rape that could be charged as assault.

The scenario outlined by one of the posters of the woman who first consents then asks the man to stop, but he doesn't, may look very bad, but legally, once inside with consent he cannot have entered without consent. This would require a new law that makes it a crime not to stop when the other partner says stop.

Also, understand that most rape laws are based on the concept that rape is a crime of violence not lust. The actor is not just satisfying his sexual urges, but forcibly attacking and assaulting another person by penetrating them. This is why the punishment for rape is so severe. A consensual act turned non-consensual does not necessarily have that violence component to it. The actor, once in by permission may not be willing to pull out until she/he achieves orgasm, as opposed to refusing to pull out because she/he suddenly wants to commit assault against the other person.

Bottom line is get to know your Mr./Ms. Goodbar before you consent to anything.

Tresspass and rape are two different types of crimes; the first property related while the second is a crime of violence.

In your first scenario, most state laws provide that tresspass can be committed if permission to enter is given, but then later withdrawn. Employees may be charged with trespass if the employer fires them and they refuse to leave when requested to do so.

In your first scenario it is not trespass if you leave within a reasonable time after the hosts requests you go.

In the second scenario, you are guilty of not just trespass, but unlawful mischief, petit larceny, and cruelty to animals.

To all that are stuck on the emotional aspect of a promising sexual encounter turned sour, the issue is what rape is and is not.

Rape is a crime of violence: a forceful act committed against another without their consent causing them injury through the penetration of an orifice. Sexual gratification is not an element.

As such, once permission is given the critical element is missing from the crime of rape. Many here would think of scenarios, whether they involve mothers, sisters or daughters or even strangers, where failure to stop should be a crime, but it would not be sexual assault.

Entering into a consensual sex act is always with some risk, being pregnancy, disease, guilt, soreness, a future stalker that won't go away, humiliation at the office or on the net, or just plain lousy sex. However, physical injury or forced sex acts that were not consented to are not the type of risks society asks us to accept when consenting to sex. This is why we have laws that do punish sexual partners that intentionally cause physical pain or injury, or force a sex act without our consent. Without those two elements, the statutory definition of rape does not include consensual sex; no matter how bad it may be.

No wonder Bill shtuped Monica Lewinsky. Hell, if I'd been married to her, I would would have lusted over the family dog. And this is the Dem's best prospect for 2008. How about finding someone with principles and who stands by them? Please post any site that might be pushing for draft Gore in 08, or better draft Bill again. The constitution only prevents consecutive terms. Bill is a candidate in '08 legally and if the Brits and run Disraeli several times over and still run a great country we can certainly re-elect Bill.

Re-Elect Bill! He Beats Hillary

Now tell me that wouldn't make a great campaign slogan and we certainly would win the fundamentalist vote. The like beating Hillary.

Whoa! Even AirForce One has started hitting the sauce.