Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
Men I have talked to about this subject often site "the point of no return" when arguing a case like Maryland's. My response is, O.K., so once you've said yes, I can get out the chain saw! How would they respond if they discovered their partner wasn't a woman or was into something they found scary? Each step of the way is negotiable!
When does "bad sex" become rape? For some "bad" sex is the "best". How many times have my sexual partners wanted to be held down with a hand over their mouths lest their screams of pleasure draw complaints from the neighbors. I'm a two for 1 guy, she's got to orgasim twice for my one. Some of the things I've done to get some women there...jeez technically they could be described in a rather violent light. Though "No" and "Please Stop" were always taken seriously.
Yes there are some complete idiots out there who think intimacy is a jack rabbit race, I can only apologize for my gender so much. Sorry sex education in the US is a bit lacking.
I've seen both sides of the this equation played out in campus dorms. Real rape, made up rape, bad sex, really stupid choices and some really incredible couplings that changed people forever.
I'd hate to be the judge on it as there are so many matters of opinion and he said she said potentials for trouble.
Webcat says: "No" and "Please Stop" were always taken seriously.
I think that's the only thing we can do when, as Anonymous pointed out, there are ambiguities in sexual encounters.
What's the worst that could happen if you stop when the woman says stop? Maybe she meant "stop, that's hurting, so let's change positions." So you do.
But if you don't stop when she says stop...
Also, Anonymous, for what it's worth, the law does recognize that rape isn't a black and white issue. Hence the different classes of rape. First degree or second degree, rape or sexual offense, statutory.
http://www.rapecrisisonline.com/law.htm
It's a recognition, although there's certainly no total clarity.
While the question, 'what constitutes saying 'no''? (if not saying, 'no' itself) is a tough one, even tougher is the question, what constitutes 'starting the act'? Answering this question seems to require an excursion into some pretty serious issues in metaphysics (what distinguishes one act or event from a subsequent act or event?) for which the court is undoubtedly ill prepared. And perhaps that could be overlooked, but for the completely obvious nature of the question. How could one fail to see it coming?
You have it right.
I personally have never understood why *any* man, when facing unequivocal "no!" from a woman he's having sex with would keep going...
unless he's a rapist.
This is exactly why I have a letter of consent that has to be signed, dated, with thumb print and notarized before I attempt to romance my way between the sheets.
So far, I haven't had much luck with the ladies.
What bothers me most about this decision is that both the men and women are assumed to become unthinking animals after intercourse has begun. The man is incapable of stopping until he climaxes and the woman is incapable of changing her mind once there is penetration. The woman is property that can be "de-flowered" and bring shame upon her father's house.
I can understand the desire for there to be bright lines where crime is concerned, particularly in the difficult task of prosecuting or defending rape. However, that is not sufficient justification for this decision. The Court has erased any crimes after penetration and held that the only damage to the woman is the penetration. Courts should not be in the business of enforcing Bibilical, Middle and Assyrian laws but in determining if judicial error has occurred. A judicial error did occur- this embarrassing decision.
this thread provides abundant evidence to support the theory that any man who senses the existence or potential for any negative or ambivalent feeling on the part of the woman is going to have a powerful incentive to unload fast before she changes her mind.
Despite the origins of the law, has it occurred to anyone that proving such a case would be impossible?
If a woman goes to the police and says she started having sex with a guy, then in the middle she said no and he didn't stop *but otherwise didn't physically harm her*,how would they prosecute such a case? There wouldn't be physical evidence distinguishable from the consensual part.
Yes, I can imagine extreme circumstances where a person may be in the process of having sex and change their mind. What I can't imagine is sitting on a jury and convicting a man of rape because he was in the middle of having consensual sex and the woman changed her mind. Sex isn't like buying a pair of shoes. People tend to get pretty involved when it's happening, making funny sounds and thrashing about and losing a bit of common sense. Where do we draw the line? How can we know if the woman made herself clear enough that the man heard her through the fog of passion? Where do we draw the line? If a woman remembers that she forgot to take her birth control pill just before a man comes, and asks him to pull out, and he doesn't... is that rape? It certainly is wrong, but would we really want to convict a man of rape for this kind of thing? Sometimes things are "wrong", without being criminal offenses. I think that if a woman actually started to fight and the man hurt her, he might be charged with assault. But we have to draw the line somewhere, and "Yes" means "Yes", just as much as "No" means "No".
It might be difficult to prove (in which case the alleged perpetrator would be found not guilty or it may never even go to trial).
But to DISALLOW EVEN PRESSING CHARGES AS A MATTER OF LAW seems unecessary and wrong.
For a little perspective, until the 1970s there was really no such thing as spousal rape as a matter of law, in part because of the sentiment that "once the woman has said yes, she can never say no."
http://www.vawnet.org/SexualViolence/PublicPolicy/SpousalRape.php
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
