Most of these letters terrify me. Of course once a woman says stop, to continue on is rape. Sex is not a one-time event that requires one consent but an ongoing act that requires continuous consent until it's over. This is not a difficult principle to understand: If you invite someone into your house, they're not trespassing. If you ask them to leave and they refuse, they are trespassing, even though you invited them in earlier! They can't make a defence out of the fact they were invited in earlier - being in someone's house requires continuous consent. And that's just being in your house.

I'm shocked at these letters that imply that women are only getting what they deserve for sleeping around or that men can't stop because they're sex animals. Where have you been? I feel like it's the 1970s / 80s again and we're debating whether women in short skirts asked for it, or wives can't say no to their husbands because "that's the deal they signed up for". And the idea that men can't control themselves is terribly insulting to men - am I supposed to believe they're wild beasts, not human beings? I despair, I really do.

Regarding "Anonymous" who went over and struggled for 30 mins. before he finally subdued her and she turned out to have been into it. At what point in this encounter was birth control brought up? Just curious.

"And think not just twice but three and four and five times before you agree to shag someone," Ms. Traister writes.

Well, yes. Absolutely. Why aren't people doing this already?

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.

Even more frightening is the survey attached to the article -- more than 1/3 of the people who took the survey agreed with the appellate court's decision. Yikes.

Also, do note that it is not a decision of the state's Supreme Court. I have a feeling the decision would be overturned if an appeal is pursued to the state's highest court. OK, maybe not a feeling, but a big fat hope...

Instinctively, we can agree that Maryland law has got to be wrong. Something is amiss when you can't withdraw consent for sex and demand that that decision be respected.

But does the penalty for rape really fit that crime? I don't think so, just as I don't think forcing sex with your wife is really the same as traditional rape.

Among the reasons we have for making rape a serious crime is that it often is done by a complete stranger and thus is terrifying. Even date rape is typically done by someone with whom the victim has not consented to sex with before.

But where consent is initially given, or has been given so many times in the past that sex with this person is a very familiar thing, the circumstances just are not as outrageous as typical rape.

I think the answer in such cases is to treat the act as some form of misdemeanor battery, still punishable as crime, with some sort of jail penalty available, but not as felonious behavior with a long prison term.

And if the unconsented sex is accompanied by violence beyond forcing penetration, that can enhance the penalty, perhaps into a higher category altogether, such as aggravated battery, which can be felonious itself if bad enough.

I hope there can also be some way to cut just a little slack for the poor guy who is given consent, is highly aroused and has penetrated and well on his way to orgasmic bliss and is given the bad news that he has to stop. That happens all the time for a variety of reasons, such as some external surprise, or a baby crying, or phone ringing, or whatever, and men have to deal with it. But when it's just a change of mind, can he not have at least a minute or two to discuss it without withdrawing and without being criminalized?

I am reminded of one of the games from "Games People Play" called "Rapo" in which a woman entices a guy to do something (sexual or nonsexual) and then turns on him for it. That doesn't apply where the turnabout is sincere.

But it is so close to the present situation that it reminds me that it is not a good idea to place major penal sanctions on one side of an intimate situation like this, commenced with consent and without violence, normal in every way except for a unilateral change of mind. We cannot let lives be ruined upon such fleeting whims.