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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

IANAL so my response is purely a layperson's....but this situation highlights the challenges of applying the law (which tries to be as clear-cut and unambiguous as possible) to a sexual encounter.

Having sex isn't like signing a legal document, where the "moment of commitment" is the single, one-time event of writing your signature.

Having sex is one long interaction between two people -- an ongoing negotiation of what's wanted or permissable, and what's unwanted and not permissable. So oral sex may be a yes, but vaginal may be a no; anal is off limits today but yesterday it was OK, etc.

So in my limited understanding of the Maryland law -- saying yes to sex is like signing a legal document -- from that point on, you're committed to any and all things afterwards?? But that's not how sexual encounters work.

Suppose two people have consensual vaginal sex, and then the man demands oral sex, and the woman says no, and the man forces it on her. By my standards, that incident of oral sex would be rape -- it would be sexual assault. Although the couple had just had consensual vaginal sex, that didn't give the man permission to perform any further sexual act of his choosing (even if it's a second round of vaginal sex).

The issue of changing one's mind in the middle of penetrative intercourse is probably the most difficult situation to evaluate, because you're right in the middle of a consensual action when you change your mind and want things to stop.

IMO somebody who continues to have intercourse with you, after you told them to stop in the middle of things, that person should stop and if they don't, that's wrong -- but I'm not sure if I'd call it rape. To me, it's not the same as someone forcing an act on you that you didn't want in the first place.

The problem is that the law doesn't seem to be well suited to fit these kinds of ambiguous situations. It's he-said-she-said -- her word against his, unless she can show any physical evidence to the contrary -- ie can she show any signs of injury, violence or force that could be evidence that he forced her to do something unwanted after their initial consensual encounter.