"broadsheet's flat foot drops again - of course a woman can object to sex in the middle of it, you reductive twits...she just can't drag the man to court under claims of rape."

Because it can't possibly be considered rape. Not even if he was hurting her - which is why she asked for him to stop. Not even if she was screaming and crying from him to stop. once she's said "yes" to sex, it can't possibly become rape.

How about reading the case this was based on. The woman only consented after being told by the boy that he was going to rape her if she didn't consent. He penetrated, it hurt her, she told him to stop, he didn't.

What about this ISN'T rape you misogynistic twit?

Clearly what we have in this story is competing interests.

1) the interest of women not to be raped.

2) the interest of men not to be falsely accused of rape.

Since this is an appeal I know the facts of the case are not in question simply the letter of the law, but I am sure facts are considered at every level in a court decision even if officially they are not, and what the facts are in this case are missing from the article.

We have nightmare scenerios on either side. For the female the nightmare scenario is of a date that turns into a beast once consent is given resulting in a physically abusive rape. For the male it is of a weak protest that went unheard in the heat of passion that results in being branded a sex offended for ones entire life, and the very real possibility of loss of freedom, income, and property.

To belittle either's point of view is to show how little you understand about the complexities invovled in the legal codification of sexual behaviors.

Whenever the state decides to legistate in this arena it is usually the result of public panic about something that relates to very few of the cases affected by the change in law. Most sexual encounters are between sane adults seeking mutual gratification, rarely does the interplay result in violent rape or baseless accusation.

On ocasion a woman will allow a serial killer into her bed, and a man might take home a vindictive narcissist, and it is that fear that we all seek legislation on.

Honestly, do you belive if you arrived at a precinct with bruises on your wrists and blood on your face that you would be asked, did you consent to this? Obviously there are horror stories on both sides again whether it is an over ardent prosecuter, or a sexist cop who dismisses a claim, but again these are the exception not the rule.

If this case was ambiguous enough to warrant a question from the Jury on whether or not it actually was rape, it is probable that the actual act in question was neither of these horror stories.

Whether or not there was a previous sexual or personal relationship with the assailant, whether or not their continued to be a sexual or personal relationship with the assailant after the attack are all things that the Jury likely weighed before asking that question. When this case came before the appellate system these factors were in evidence as well and no doubt influenced the decision.

In the end however no matter what the facts of this case or anyother's are, the law will fail someone. This is the problem with law, any line drawn leaves someone on the otherside looking in. Courts and the legislature try their best to limit the ammount of innocents caught in such a legal trap, but they always fail at least some.

The question that none of us can answer is who's rights should be on what side of the line. What protections sould a man receive against false allegations and vindictive lovers? What protections should women receive again shameless mashers and violent criminals? And in protecting one group how do we explain our actions to those now left to the devices of charming sociopaths?

http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/cosa/2006/225s05.pdf

According to what is listed in this brief it appears to be a rather unfortunate case regardless of how you slice it.

The woman was raped, but in breaking down the two stroies told it can be seen why the courts might not have thought the appellant was guilty of rape.

It can be argued as the appellant did that he was unaware of the girl being raped, and simply thought this was consentual sex.

Although there are clear reasons why adults might read the fact differently, if we assume intent is a portion of the crime of rape, we should look at the facts from the appelants point of view.

Also that the victim gave the appellant her phone number after the incident seems to bolster the appellant's case.

Although the victim in question was said to have suffered from Rape Trauma Syndrome, one can argue that this as a concept was beyond the appellants understanding.

From his point of view, and by his statements, he did not actually penatrate the victim (although he may have and simply not realized it) and ceased to attempt intercourse after he understood the victim was nolonger consenting to the act.

This is without a doubt the most disturbing cases of he said she said I have ever seen, but in the end that is what it is.

And that is why these hair splitting laws exist. If you look at it from the appellant's point of view, it was a very bad failed attempt at sex. Should he lose his freedom, livelyhood, and be branded a sex offender for life if his presentation of facts is correct? Should his own stupidity mean his life as an accepted member of society ends here and now?

That this girl suffered irrevocable trauma is not in question, the question before the court was if the laws of the state had been followed. Arguably they were not.

The ambiguity in this case no doubt lead to the initial hung jury, and this current reversal. While it is clear this woman was a victim, exactly what she was a victim of with regard to appellant is in question. And the burden of proof is the prosecuter's, not the defendant's.