In Maryland, It’s Not a Woman’s Prerogative to Change Her Mind
Is it rape if a woman begins sex with a man, then says no — but the man continues?
In California, it is.
In Maryland, apparently, it’s not.
Maryland’s rule strikes me as bizarre. So a man can enter a woman, whisper in her ear that he considers her a dirty whore, and she can’t change her mind? That’s absurd. What if it’s painful for her, so she cries out for him to stop? He can just keep going? Ridiculous.
It’s not going to be rape if the man takes a couple of seconds to stop. But if a woman says no, even after sex begins, it’s no.
Feel free to rip me to shreds in the comments for my alleged political correctness.
UPDATE: I should note that I don’t actually consider my position to be rooted in political correctness. I consider it just common sense. My reference to “political correctness” was a tongue-in-cheek anticipation of the criticism I figured I would get from some quarters. I’m adding the word “alleged” to the sentence to make that more clear.
UPDATE x2: Typo fixed.
I’d say that you’re right philosophically, but how on God’s earth would you ever make a case on this one?
If it was legal to begin sex, and then became illegal at some point during sex, because the lady in question changed her mind, how could that ever be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
Dana (3e4784) — 11/1/2006 @ 8:31 amThis law change in Maryland is deeply flawed for all of the reasons you cited. It’s not “political correctness” for someone to be able to have an equal say in the sex they are having. It’s what we would consider a normal, healthy relationship.
Tom (eb6b88) — 11/1/2006 @ 8:33 amI second Dana’s comment – yeah, such a man would be scum, but I can’t imagine how you would prosecute such a crime, or even if the crime would actually be the same as rape.
Michael Heinz (3a21a9) — 11/1/2006 @ 8:34 amA guy should never yield to rape. He should just pull his thing out and proceed to destroy a woman in the workplace, where it will always be legal.
Vermont Neighbor (456914) — 11/1/2006 @ 8:39 amHopefully the Maryland legislature will enact a law to bypass the court. This ruling reminded me of the movie Disclosure, in which, ironically, the man changed his mind during sex.
aunursa (1b5bad) — 11/1/2006 @ 8:40 am…how could that ever be proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
The woman would probably need to be evaluated by a medical professional. There are physical signs of rape that I understand are fairly distinctive.
But in a broader sense, consider date-rape. Whether the sex was consensual at its onset and became rape thereafter, or the evening was consensual (i.e. a date) but ended in rape, it seems to me that the resultant evidence would provide roughly same amount of proof in either situation. Yet, certainly no one would advocate that we decriminalize date-rape as well.
Tom (eb6b88) — 11/1/2006 @ 8:44 am…I can’t imagine how you would prosecute such a crime, or even if the crime would actually be the same as rape.
How is date-rape prosecuted? It would seem to pose the same obstacles as this form of rape.
And can we really be clear here? Sex that is begun OR continued against one of the parties’ consent, is rape by definition. I, for one, don’t believe that any form of that should be legal, even if the difficulties of proving it result in only a few cases.
Tom (eb6b88) — 11/1/2006 @ 8:48 amNo, I don’t think so. Not in this case. In a typical rape, the girl is grabbed, thrown down, and raped/penetrated. Her vagina will not be lubricated, and there will be lots of tearing and damage. Plus any bruises and or cuts and scrapes during the struggle.
But during consentual sex, the vagina is lubriacated, and if she decides to stop midway, but the man doesn’t, I don’t think there will be this damage.
Not to be graphic, but when a 200lb man has a 125lb woman pinned down during normal sex, reallly, she isn’t going anywhere if he won’t let her.
If he did proceed, to me, yeah, it would be rape if he kept on going for another 2-5 minutes, but I doubt that there would be much actual physical evidence on her body that he had done this. It would pretty much be his word against her word.
I’m not trying to justify it, but I don’t think there would be the sort of evidenece that you get from a typical rape.
And even normal, totally consentual vaginal sex leaves normal tearing and abrassions. It’s just part of normal sex.
Again, not trying to get graphic.
EFG (779013) — 11/1/2006 @ 9:09 amTom and all, how can you ever establish either a presumption of innocence, or for that matter any sort of criminal intent? The situation becomes one where a man may think he was having concsensual sex through the whole process, and then find out after the fact that she changed her mind.
Charlie (Colorado) (19fced) — 11/1/2006 @ 9:11 amWhen I was in college the most radical of feminists wanted to establish the notion that it was a form if rape if the woman retroactively withdrew her consent — i.e., she regretted her decision the next day. I remember reading an essay written by my campus’s head honcho womyn (was that the singular as well as the plural?) trying to make that case.
Not to be super-insensitive, but should it be like buying a home or a car where you have a certain time frame in which to change your mind? Is that how the California law is constructed, or can a participant change his or her mind up to the very, um, climax?
JVW (709273) — 11/1/2006 @ 9:24 amhigh risk for unjust convictions here. the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt and this is the ultimate he said, she said, and because the sex was consensual at the beginning, the presence of his dna is irrelevant. corroborating evidence needed, witness(es) (!) or an audiovisual recording.
assistant devil's advocate (7b66e0) — 11/1/2006 @ 9:24 ama man enters a woman, then whispers in her ear that he considers her a dirty whore (patterico’s use of “she” instead of “he” is probably just a typo) – not my style for sure, but i’ve heard secondhand that couples say all kinds of funny things to each other during sex. far more offensive would be if he entered her, then whispered in her ear “i support amending the constitution so george w. bush can run for a third term.”
defense counsel’s cross of the vic is going to be brutal. at various points, she can be made to say things that will alienate jurors of both genders. from a moral philosophical perspective i agree with patterico, but i challenge him to explain how this will work in his assigned courtrooms. it’s edging perilously close to male imprisonment upon female fiat. law and justice are two almost entirely disjunctive things, and only one of those things can be objectified. there is no objective justice because there is no objective reality; the photon that reflected from the object, enabling you to image it, changed the object so that it is no longer what you see.
If she says “Don’t stop”, may he anyway?
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/1/2006 @ 9:50 amso this guy was shtupping the assistant manager of his bank, and when he ejaculated prematurely, she told him “don’t you know there’s a substantial interest penalty in the event of early withdrawal?”
assistant devil's advocate (7b66e0) — 11/1/2006 @ 9:55 amSorry if that sounded flippant, but do we need a law for everything?
It seems that calling this “rape”, rather than something less is a bit much. Poor form, certainly. Assault, possibly. But a violent, premeditated felony? Really??
Is this something that you would have him pay for with 5 years in prison, and a lifetime of ankle bracelets and living no closer than 2000 feet from a school? Loss of perspective, I think.
Assuming that it could be proved in any way, which it can’t. If anything is wrong, it’s the CA law. Some things just aren’t legislatible.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/1/2006 @ 10:01 amI just don’t understand how anybody can think a law which depends on jurors’ deciding the parties’ states of mind, without supporting evidence of some sort one way or another, is going to result in anything but a crapshoot at trial. I haven’t sat as a juror on a rape case, and given the current state of the law I hope I don’t, because I have sat on a spousal battery in which no medical evidence or other witnesses to the alleged battery were on offer. How do you decide such a case? On the basis, it would seem from my experience, of the attitudes that everybody brings into the jury room with them. Some are going to believe whatever the woman says, some are going to believe whatever the man says, some are going to just be baffled, and you’re going to get a lot of argument over reasonable doubt and a lot of hung juries. (Which is what happened in our case.)
Now maybe on the basis of the Principle of the Thing, it’s true that the woman can withdraw her consent at any point, and, if she does, what happens thereafter is rape. But in practical terms such cases are all but impossible to decide, particularly given “rape shield laws” that exclude evidence. I don’t think that cases that are all but impossible to decide should be brought at all, and particularly not when penalties of the kind we’re usually talking about in rape cases are in play.
Jimmy (327152) — 11/1/2006 @ 10:22 amJimmy wrote:
Think of Mike Tyson. The woman he was convicted of raping went to his hotel room and had a nightgown in her purse. At some point she must have thought that she would want to spend the night with Mr Tyson.
Now, that doesn’t mean that she ever consented to sex when the question actually arose, but I still don’t see how in a he said/ she said situation, with a woman who had at least considered it prior to going to Mr Tyson’s hotel room, could ever meet the standard of having been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Translation: the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard seems to go out the window when jurors are supposed to decide which party seems more believable.
Dana (3e4784) — 11/1/2006 @ 10:48 amWithout commenting on the merits prosecution, date rape etc., Continuing to perform after the NO shows a great disrespect for the women. Secondly, the change from yes to no probably means the sex was not truly consensual to begin with.
joe (161ce3) — 11/1/2006 @ 10:50 am“secondly, the change from yes to no probably means the sex was not truly consensual to begin with.”
assistant devil's advocate (7b66e0) — 11/1/2006 @ 10:58 amjoe, what part of “yes” are you having trouble getting your head around?
To my way of thinking, this issue has two seperate points that need to be considered. First is, if the woman consents to sex then it turns out to a kind of sex that see does not wish to engae in, since there are all sorts of perversions out there, I’ll leave it to your imaginations to what form that would take. At that point she would have every right to demand it cease, and if it did not, there would be signs of resistance.
Secondly, and I fear more commonly, would be the case of remorse after the act followed by a claim that she refused consent in the midst of intercourse. There you would have a case of no signs of forced sex, yet the accused would carry the stigma of being accused or charged in the eyes of many even if found innocent. Further there is a point where some bodily functions cannot or are exceedingly difficult to be stopped once begun. Can a woman demand that a man stop once he has begun climax and claim rape if he does not?
As a result, I don’t believe that either law is so hot.
Thresherman (9f37aa) — 11/1/2006 @ 11:23 amhere’s an apropos internet funny i got from a friend last week: the orgasmic simulator! for best comic results, do the male simulation first (this won’t take long at all), then do the female…
assistant devil's advocate (9515ec) — 11/1/2006 @ 11:48 amhttp://viral.lycos.co.uk/attachments/3939/orgasmic_simulator2.htm
“…so this guy was shtupping…”
Sounds like there could be some rationale to expand pre-nupts to pre-schtups. Sign here, schweetheart, while I get us something to drink.
allan (bbd96f) — 11/1/2006 @ 11:53 amWow, I know all you are lawyers, but have any of you actually had any sex? Maybe I’m due for years of analysis but, when I have an orgasm going, I’m not thinking about Constitutional law (or what is an entirely other thing, California law). And I bet you are closer to evolutionist types, you know, descent from the animals etc, rather than the “just below the angels” types. My point is, do you really think this is a situation reducible to rationality or are you just arguing ala lawyers that it is a point of law? Just asking. Sign me – ankle-bracelet-bait
DaveK (b47753) — 11/1/2006 @ 12:16 pmPatterico, I see your pt and agree with the concept, but in practice I think it would be more prone to abuse than to use.
Facing a jury of 6 men and 6 women, and a standard of reasonable doubt, it seems likely the defendant could simply say, “I was in the throes of passion and certainly don’t all remember her changing her mind.”
The men on the jury would, in the backs of their minds, be thinking that such a charge could also be brought against them too at some pt in their lives. What’s the statute of limitations on rape? Could a bitter ex-wife still file a similar charge, claiming it happened 10 years ago?
Corroborating evidence could change this, perhaps – depending on the strength of such evidence – but the nature of the situation makes such evidence pretty much impossible to get.
BTW, I am equating “sex” in this context – i.e. the woman was already having sex w/the man – solely with intercourse.
In the post-Clinton era, is that still what other commenters think it means, too? Or does it now also include petting, foreplay or even, as the Monty Python gang liked to phrase it, kneading the buttocks? Cuz if it was just a warm-up, then of course that would change the situation .
ras (c7dc18) — 11/1/2006 @ 12:20 pmPerhaps this should be a crime but I don’t think it should be called rape or normally lead to severe penalties. Incidently I think there should a concept of imperfect consent in rape cases where a woman does not give full consent but does give some encouragement. This would be considered a mitigating factor.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 11/1/2006 @ 1:59 pmI couldn’t disagree with you more, James. A woman should have the ability to say yes or no regardless of how aroused the man is or how hot they were acting together.
When a woman kisses me she gives me some encouragement. When a woman and I “make out” which everyone knows what that means, she gives me more.
Yet she has still not consented to intercourse — at all — and I recognize this.
“But she kissed me, your honor,” is not a (even a partial) defense to rape.
Your views are… Marylandish.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 2:06 pmIt is a matter of human decency, dignity, consideration. I would like to think that a gentleman would respect a “no” or “please stop”. Gaining access doesn’t always mean that one can stay. Short of recording the activity for posterity, I don’t know how the courts would go about handling this issue.
Hugo (74b74c) — 11/1/2006 @ 2:13 pmI can’t find anything as cogent to write as the above.
lincoln (dfaf29) — 11/1/2006 @ 3:08 pmThe idea that what the man did constitutes rape trivializes the crime of rape. It is a terrible, terrible thing for a man to force intimacy upon a woman who doesn’t want to share intimacy with him. However, once she has consented to intimacy with him and they have a disagreement over the exact details of the act, it’s not rape if the man uses his greater strength to get his way in the disagreement. This is just a minor form of assault like slapping someone or shoving them or grabbing and holding them for a few minutes so they can’t leave in the midst of a heated argument. It’s a wrong thing to do and arguably criminal, but it doesn’t rise to the same level of abuse as actual rape.
Doc Rampage (47be8d) — 11/1/2006 @ 4:00 pmRead the opinion here [pdf,196K].
The factual background makes it clear that this woman’s “consent” was really forced acquiesence to not one, but two assailants. She basically stopped struggling because she was being threatened, but as the rape progressed, she began resisting again. The account given here is very dry, but even so, I cannot read it and think she ever, at any point, thought she wanted to have sex with these two scum. Nor can I imagine that any male with a shred of decency would think she had freely given her consent.
There’s an interesting, if somewhat disturbing, discussion of the legal origins of rape under common law:
[H/T to Pandagon for the pointer.]
refugee (3b19bb) — 11/1/2006 @ 4:08 pmThat is totally disgusting.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 4:36 pmI have now read the decision and it makes sense in that rape is defined as penetration without consent. Consent to penetration cannot be withdrawn (or granted for that matter) retroactively.
This does not mean that continuing coitus after a withdrawal of consent should not be considered some other criminal offense (as are some acts without penetration).
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 11/1/2006 @ 4:42 pmI’m sorry, I must respectfully disagree. The actions may constitute ugly behavior and might even be some minor crime, but it’s not rape. If it is, then every sexual encounter is rape if the woman says it is. By your logic she can withdraw consent a microsecond before it ends and you have no defense. I am perfectly willing to impose the death penalty for rape, I am not willing to criminalize sex. I rarely disagree with Patterico but this is not only foolish, it is downright dangerous. The oportunity for abuse is truly Nifongesque.
Ken Hahn (ac7315) — 11/1/2006 @ 4:44 pmChristoph, so you think the penalty for a man who deliberately stalks and rapes a complete stranger should be the same as for a man who momentarily loses control in the middle of an otherwise consensual encounter. I don’t agree.
By the way imposing the same harsh penalties for date rape cases as for stranger rape cases has the unintended effect of making convictions in date rape cases more difficult as juries will look for excuses to acquit rather than send some otherwise nice guy to jail for 20 years.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 11/1/2006 @ 4:52 pmrefugee, if the woman didn’t want to have sex with these two guys perhaps she should have left like her girl friend did when the conversation turned to renting a motel room. Or perhaps she should have not have driven them to an isolated area and gotten into the back seat with them. Based on the summary of the facts in the appeal this was hardly a clearcut case and in fact the first jury deadlocked.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 11/1/2006 @ 4:59 pmJames, fuck off; who is talking about sentencing?
Mostly, I’m commenting upon the idea that if a woman has committed to some intimacy she has consented to all intimacy.
So if a man’s daughter decides that she wants her breast felt up or lets the guy slip a finger in her panties, but she wants to stop there, this man who then forces her to have sex with him despite her her saying no is not guilty of rape?
Fuck that and fuck you.
And yes, I want a hell of a strong sentence.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 5:01 pmI apologize to anyone who may have misinterpreted my words. I meant to attack Napoleon Bonaparte, but I left out the words “Emperor of France”.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 5:03 pmChristoph, I am talking about sentencing. As I said in my original comment:
“This would be considered a mitigating factor.”
Obviously this refers to sentencing. Incidentally I believe there is in some states a concept of imperfect self defense which recognizes an use of force was provoked short of complete legal justification and which is a mitigating factor when it comes to sentencing.
In the Maryland case the woman testified the man stopped 5-10 seconds after being told to stop (the man testified he stopped immediately). The man received 5 years plus 5 years probation. I consider this a harsh sentence if the acts were otherwise consensual (which seems to be in dispute).
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 11/1/2006 @ 5:44 pmI tend to agree with James Shearer and Ken Hahn, at least from a practical and legal perspective.
In theory, Patterico may be right: of course a woman (or a man!) should be able to withdraw consent at any point in the sexual act.
But we’re being specific here: Cristoph’s scenario above is – no offense – a strawman. Nobody suggests that getting to second base means you have a right to a home run.
The way the question is actually framed, intercourse has begun. The man has “entered” the woman, according to the original post.
Should EITHER PARTY be able to say “stop” at that point? Of course. In theory.
But how does that work, legally and practically? Are we really going to suggest that it is a PROSECUTABLE offense if one party yells stop seconds before orgasm? Really?
And how would you ever even potentially prove the offense? Imagine the testimony:
So you went on a date with the defendant? Yes.
Had a few drinks? Yes.
Kissed? Yes.
(Insert Penthouse Forum here)
… and you consented to sexual intercourse? Yes.
In what position? Uh … I was on top.
And for how long did you have sex? Um, about 5 minutes …
So … at 5 minutes you’re having consensual sex, it’s maybe YOU who initiated it, or maybe you’re married and it’s the thousandth time … and at 5 minutes and 1 second, it’s rape?
How do you prove it? How possibly? Unless there is literally videotape, how could you? Can you even imagine a way?
I can’t. I certainly can’t imagine any way that would actually result in a conviction.
And then there’s the worst part: can you even imagine how many false accusation there would be? Anyone, at any time, could have consensual sex … and then call the police. Since no evidence would be necessary for the charge – after all, it began as consensual intercourse – the charges would, I guess, be filed.
No conviction, of course … but who needs convictions in this day of public witch hunts? Ask the Duke lacrosse players if a not guilty verdict or a dismissal is going to make things all better …
The bottom line: Maryland law is reflecting reality. To suggest otherwise is indeed overly politically correct silliness, that hearkens back to that controversy at some school where sexual partners had to literally explicitly consent at each point in the sexual act. Anyone remember that?
May I touch your breast? Yes. May I move my hand lower? Yes. And on and on.
Fundamentally stupid, and bad law. And not surprising that California thought it was a good idea.
Professor Blather (c65bfa) — 11/1/2006 @ 5:51 pmJames, if that’s your only point and if the facts as you reported them vis a vis the woman’s testimony of him stopping within 5-10 seconds (let’s call it 5 on the reasonable doubt theory since this is her testimony) then, yes, the case is ridiculous and that case should be tossed or overturned on appeal.
But if what you meant is this:
… then that’s pure bullshit.
If you’re in a friendly playfight with someone, a practice round, and the person says, “Stop hitting me,” and it takes you a few seconds to realize he means it and stop, that’s one thing.
If the person begs you to stop and puts up their hands in defense and you continue to hit him for several minutes until he falls down injured you have committed assault and battery.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 5:54 pmDoc has an interesting point though. That’s probably what scenes from romance novels try to convey. Overall, I would have to go with the same thinking as someone saying “she’s a little bit pregnant.” A woman should be responsible for her surroundings, but not for the actions of a man’s penetration. At that point, it’s no longer intimacy but violence.
Vermont Neighbor (456914) — 11/1/2006 @ 6:00 pmWith all due respect, Professor Blather, your argument is the strawman’s, not mine.
You say, “Nobody suggests getting to second base means you have the right to a home run.”
However, in this thread, Doc Ramage says:
and James B. Shearer says:
These are horrible concepts to enshrine in law.
Obviously the circumstances of any case must be considered in assigning guilt or punishment. But to accept either of the above positions is incredibly offensive to women. Or anyone who believes in consensual acts generally and a person’s right to say yes or no with regards to their body.
This is a fundamental freedom. Women have the right to withdraw consent from sex when they wish to and a man has a right to say, “Fuck you, bitch,” as he’s putting on his boxers, but he doesn’t have the right to more.
Patterico has a good point. What if it hurts the woman? What if she simply doesn’t like it?
She can say no… or maybe a woman who agrees to kiss by a man once must be kissed by him forever — at least during that one encounter — until he decides otherwise?
Here is your real potential for abuse.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 6:02 pmI dated a would-be law student who engaged me in this very discussion, in bed. I basically had to develop a protocol which was the equivalent of a pre-nup. Our agreement was that she would take off my shorts, and that was consent. I basically said, you know my sexual behavior well enough by now, if you take off my shorts you know what to expect.
It got to the point at we had to agree that the decision for sex was determined by the pursuit of orgasm, which was the point, and unless orgasm was mutual then some sort of abuse was taking place. So there came a point at which, seriously, I had to work her with my hands if I finished and was too tired in order to satisfy not only her, but the terms of our arrangement.
This lasted… not long. I determined that I wanted a different kind of sexual satisfaction than she was willing and/or able to provide. She said that I was secretly gay. (She had previously agreed to a threesome with her lesbian roommate only on the condition that I play a feminine role – I declined the offer.) She later went lesbian, so far as I was able to find out.
True story. I swear to God.
This is very precisely what’s wrong with the politics of sex and the laws that follow for the sake of esteem and ‘social equality’ of the multifarious variations of gender roles. If you stop to think about the slippery slopes here, the mind boggles. The woman I was having sex with wasn’t sure if she was properly heterosexual, that was because she had expectations of male/female sex that were unmet in various ways. So she could argue, as could anyone, that she was as abused by my normal expectations of sex as I might be if a man proposed sex to me. In fact she invited me to see for myself – I really could not know my ‘true’ sexuality until I had experienced the satisfactions of gay sex, and that I might just *think* I’m happy now, but really being psychologically damaged by my current sexual experiences. The closer we came to breaking up over sex, the more she made such an argument. She would argue that, for example, there is no such thing as ‘make up sex’, that anybody engaged in this was trying to substitute an emotional good feeling for a rational resolution.
I finally decided that she simply wasn’t worth it, but she wasn’t stupid. I went back to my prior girlfriend, told her about it, went to counseling about it, realized that I wasn’t crazy and dumped her within a few weeks.
TGIMarried (5a81e1) — 11/1/2006 @ 6:20 pmThat is very interesting.
But totally irrelevant.
If you’re having sex a woman and she says stop, maybe you take a second and see what’s she’s saying, but if it’s pretty damn sure she means it, you stop.
Even if you think she’s being a bitch you stop because you don’t want to go to jail. That’s one of the reasons for laws. As incentive for people without much in the way or morality or respect for others’ rights to control their own body and/or property.
A decent man would do so anyway because you don’t want to have sex with someone who doesn’t want to have sex with you. This is immoral, evil, and it is illegal.
It should remain illegal.
Yes, some women or men play interesting consent/power games and I have no problem with this. In some cases, I heartily approve.
But you become aware of the fact that your partner is no longer consenting and asks you to stop… you have to stop or you should go to jail.
This may be a very difficult case to prosecute and perhaps that’s as it should be. False allegations of rape definitely occur.
As a matter of law, however, a person has the right to remove consent for you to apply a force, especially a sexual force, to their body.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 6:33 pmAnd to clarify my thinking, I believe a woman has every right to withdraw consent and that this does not automatically make her a “bitch”… she may merely have changed her mind and treating her with some respect, courtesy, and an attempt at understanding is probably the best policy… for moral reasons and even if you ever want to have sex with her again… I’m merely leaving in place the man’s right to think/say whatever he wants, but not do whatever he wants. If you can understand the distinction.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 6:35 pmChristoph, I think you may not realize what I mean by “imperfect consent”. The woman still has the right to refuse, she just is not entitled to have the state impose the same penalty if the refusal is not honored as if she had not led the man on at all. This is analogous to other areas of law where a lesser penalty may be imposed if for example an assault was provoked.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 11/1/2006 @ 6:37 pmJames, any court considers the factors of the case when imposing sentence. I don’t believe, however, that in law the fact that a woman may have had some sexual contact with a man should be a mitigating factor.
A woman kissing a man, maybe letting him touch her, then deciding he’s being really aggressive and scaring her so she says she doesn’t want to have sex… now becomes a mitigating factor?
This is ridiculous.
So, if a man hypothetically plans to rape a woman he should, for legal reasons, ensure he gets some consensual sexual touchin’ in for a few seconds so he can argue mitigation to a court?
It sets an awful principle into law.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 6:42 pmAnd a woman giving a man a blow job isn’t the same as provoking an assault! Give your head a shake, James. [pun unintended]
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 6:44 pmChristoph, suppose a woman plans in advance to withdraw consent in the middle of coitus hoping that the man will not immediately stop so she can charge him with rape? I don’t see why the law should treat this sort of thing in the same way as an unprovoked rape.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 11/1/2006 @ 6:46 pmI’m sure that could be taken into consideration by a judge or jury (or prosecutors for that matter: Ask Patterico — prosecutors have discretion not to prosecute every alleged crime, but are to prosecute crimes where a crime against the broader community or its values has occurred… a prosecutor could easily feel this case is weak and plea it out if s/he took it up at all) with any crime if you could prove it… entrapment.
However, legally, a private person cannot entrap someone to commit a crime and this is already well established law:
This would be no different in law than a person convincing their buddy to rob a bank so that they could turn their buddy in… or convincing their buddy to carry drugs or whatever.
People aren’t supposed to commit crimes, remember.
However, someone manipulating someone into raping them is not analogous to what you said earlier:
and not to what Doc Rampage said:
The fact that a woman may have kissed a man or let him rub her back is not “provoking an assault”.
Your example doesn’t hold water. It is deeply offensive to women.
Every woman is now supposed to accept that by engaging in any sexual, romantic, or flirtatious contact with a man in the United States of America she is now encouraging him to rape her, providing a mitigating defense in her rape, and provoking him to sexually assault her?
I’m back to saying, f* you, Emperor Napoleon.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 7:02 pmDoesn’t this create two classes of citizens? One class which can determine, by their own reasons, motivations what-have-you, what is Consensual sex and what is rape. And another class which which has no rights in this relationship?
paul from fl (967602) — 11/1/2006 @ 7:26 pmCould a man (in female dominant positions) then claim rape halfway through?
Doesn’t this create two classes of citizens? One class which can determine, by their own reasons, motivations what-have-you, what is Consensual sex and what is rape. And another class which which has no rights in this relationship?
paul from fl (967602) — 11/1/2006 @ 7:26 pmCould a man (in female dominant positions) then claim rape halfway through?
Christoph,
You are certainly f***ing boring, if nothing else.
Thx to everyone else for trying to have a grownup discussion, tho. That’s why I come here. Lotsa interesting ideas and people.
ras (c7dc18) — 11/1/2006 @ 7:34 pmI didn’t realize a discussion of rape law was supposed to entertain you, ras.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 7:37 pmp.s. Christoph,
Conflating “yes, enter me, big boy” with “flirtatious contact” doesn’t make an argument a winner.
Flirtatious contact is to brush against someone in an accidental-on-purpose manner. It is not the same as yelling “Stop now, you have 2 seconds to comply!” in the middle of intercourse.
Everyone here agrees with P that a woman has the right to say no. What’s really being debated is the man’s reaction time, and also whether her previous consent should be a mitigating factor in sentencing upon conviction, lest we otherwise treat our 6-second man the same as a true back-alley rapist.
Drop the holier-than-thou pose (yeah, yeah, you’re so caring, yay for you) and return to *civil* discussion and you might learn these things on your own. You’re working yourself into a lather w/people who are mostly agreeing with you.
ras (c7dc18) — 11/1/2006 @ 7:46 pmras, the two quotes I’m taking issue with are:
and
I’m not talking about withdrawing within two seconds and have addressed that with multiple comments above.
Return to honesty.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 7:55 pmOh, and my, “holier than thou prose,” referred to a man’s right to say, “Fuck you, bitch,” so, again, you might try intellectual honesty.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 7:57 pmWhat a bunch of crap all you guys have written. Here’s the basic rule: “Be careful where you stick your little weenie”. How about this more specific rule: “Don’t fuck a woman you do not absolutely and without question want to be the mother of your children.” Which means you love her, respect her, trust her and know enough about her to want to live the rest of your life with her and raise children and grandchildren together. Sheesh. Is this a conservative blog or not?
On topic: Who cares? Fuck a flake who accuses you of rape, go to prison — another combatant in the culture war hors de combat.
nk (d7a872) — 11/1/2006 @ 8:03 pmChristoph, your reading of my post is inexcusably hostile. I was responding to a description in which a woman changed her mind after penetration and the man didn’t stop in mid thrust, but some few thrusts later, so he was accused of rape. I was specifically responding to this case when I talked about disagreement over the “exact details of the act”. To suggest that I was talking about the difference between heavy petting and intercourse is a gross misrepresentation if not actually slanderous.
You have some nerve lecturing others about intellectual honesty.
Doc Rampage (47be8d) — 11/1/2006 @ 8:26 pmChristoph,
Both Shearer and Rampage qualified their statements pretty well. “Imperfect consent” was to be merely a mitigating factor, and I think re our 6-second man, the circumstances are indeed mitigating.
As for the “man’s greater strength” cpmment, it was not only preceded by a disclaimer that obviates your subsequent reaction, it was also mentioned *not* as justification (go back and re-read if you need to) but as fact; i.e. that a man might be able to heave off an unwanted woman after 4.5 seconds, but a woman could not normally toss off a guy as quickly.
Intellectual honesty requires you to acknowledge these things. Since you are big on intellectual honesty, I know you will do so.
Lastly, as for your “holier than thou” attitude that I noted, I was not referring to any specific comment of yours, but rather your overall attitude. Deliberately misintepreting others in order to get your j’accuse working is symptomatic.
Everyone Else,
Is one of the probs that the crime of rape now requires levels of severity, much as murder can be on the first or second degree etc? What if we reclassified situations such as the 6-second man as, say, Sexual Malfeasance, with first and second degree etc to fit the generic situations? Would that help?
ras (c7dc18) — 11/1/2006 @ 8:31 pmWe are all proposing different scenarios, the main one being withdrawal after intercouse, others being ones like I have proposed partly as a reaction to James B. Shearer’s comment:
“Incidently I think there should a concept of imperfect consent in rape cases where a woman does not give full consent but does give some encouragement”
“…does give some encouragement,” plainly means encouragement of different types, it doesn’t refer to intercourse since a woman saying yes to you entering her is a whole lot of encouragement.”
So my proposing examples of where this language is dangerous, as it relates to law, which was his (and your) point, is entirely appropriate.
But your comment is inexcusably disgusting.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 8:32 pmDoc Ramage cannot have it both ways, ras.
He cannot say that the woman consents to intimacy with him, but they disagree (this is a matter of will and decision, not physical strength) on the exact detail of the act (oral? anal? vaginal? for a long time? for a couple minutes?) and then argue he can use his greater strength to get his way in the disagreement (his words) and then state that it’s a mere question of his not being able to reverse his 200 lb in 4.5 seconds.
He has stated there is a disagreement over intimacy and the exact detail of the act and that now that intimacy has started, a man can use force to get his way in the disagreement.
That is disgusgting. In California (but not Maryland, I guess) it would be criminal.
If you didn’t mean to say what your words plainly said, Doc Ramage, perhaps you should restate them.
Because that’s what you said.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 8:40 pmChristoph,
Sigh. Go back a third time, pls, and re-read Doc’s comment. Don’t take the comment out of context. He is referring the “details of the act,” not whether or not the act itself occurs.
There’s more than one position here!
ras (c7dc18) — 11/1/2006 @ 8:41 pmChristoph,
At this pt I am rapidly concluding that the heart of the disagreement is that you don’t want to see things any other way; this one feels too good. Enjoy, and goodnight.
ras (c7dc18) — 11/1/2006 @ 8:43 pmIt’s pretty clear I understood him correctly although I overstated my position. He’s not saying it’s okay… he’s just saying it’s not that bad.
That once intimacy begins, it’s just a minor form of assault to use your greater physical strength to force her to continue intimacy and, indeed, to choose what type of intimacy (the “disagreement”) to engage in.
No, I restate my opinion with full vigor: this is disgusting.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 8:45 pmras, I’m concluding that you are intellectually dishonest and are not looking at the plain meaning of Doc Rampage’s words as I quoted above in comment #64. You are free to discontinue this discussion and that won’t cause me to lose sleep.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 8:51 pmI guess I agree but you’ve also got to understand it’s one of those laws that’s on the books to discourage folks, not because it’s actually enforceable. Are there any other crimes on the books that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt with a complete lack of physical evidence and just the say-so of the victim? Why should rape be different? Because it’s so horrible? Other crimes are horrible. This is, by its nature, a crime that looks (physical evidence-wise) exactly the same as a non-crime, consensual sex.
Seeing as how such a situation can be abused, is it really a good idea to keep such a law on the books?
To be fair, and clear, I am thinking of a situation where the couple engages in consensual sex, and before the act is done, the woman decides she’s had enough, he stinks, he says something terrible, whatever, and she says “stop it, I want to go home” and he does not stop immediately. Yeah, he’s a jerk, how do you prove it?
Linus (c376df) — 11/1/2006 @ 9:03 pmI totally agree that this is a tough one to prove, Linus. I totally agree with Alan Dershowitz when he described rape as the most underreported crime in America — and the most overreported crime in America — I have enormous sympathy for this position.
But let me make a simple point that Patterico made earlier. I will make it less genteely.
Let’s say a woman is having sex with a man and she thinks this is a great idea. But it begins to hurt. He has a very large cock. She’s not as lubricated as she was before and now it really hurts. Maybe she has one of those small “vaginal tears” EFG was talking about in comment #9 and it really hurts. Perhaps like an ex girlfriend (and friend to this day, but now platonic) of mine she had birth recently and the scar from her episiotomy hurts so she wants to stop sex.
Should it be legal for the man to continue to fuck her hard for the next 28-minutes while what started out for her as pleasure is now pain, confinement, and fear?
I think not. It may be hard to prove… but, a jury can make that call if this comes up and there’s sufficient evidence; it should not be legal nor should it be some minor crime.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 9:13 pmThe crux of the issue is that the man did not comply quickly enough with the request to stop. The debate is what should be the legal definition of “quickly enough”.
andy (daf5a2) — 11/1/2006 @ 10:08 pmI think that it should be illegal to have sex with someone without their consent (gee, I thought it already was) and that consent can be removed.
I think it’s a common understanding that consent to physical actions like kissing, sex, whatever, can be removed. This isn’t a contract.
Then it becomes “reasonable doubt” territory. Obviously, it may take some time for a man to become aware of the fact that his partner wants him to stop, it may take a moment to gain physical control over himself and make a decision, and it may take him an additional (reasonable) amount of time for him to withdraw, particularly depending on his physical condition and their position.
I’m not saying he has to be in all cases Speedy Gonzales on the way out. But he must react and cease his actions within a reasonable amount of time, under the circumstances, once he becomes aware she is withdrawing consent. And once sex has begun, I would say, the onus is definitely on her to communicate this clearly.
But, in a situation and it surely happens, where a woman (or man) starts sex, but decides to disontinue, and you flat-out ignore her using your greater strength to decide the “disagreement” in your favor for a significant period of time is rape.
In California.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 10:14 pm*discontinue
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 10:16 pmChristoph said:
“…does give some encouragement,” plainly means encouragement of different types, it doesn’t refer to intercourse since a woman saying yes to you entering her is a whole lot of encouragement.”
I meant by “some encouragement” to include both a little encouragement and a lot of encouragement with mitigation proportional to encouragement.
I brought up imperfect self defense but it isn’t quite analogous. Imperfect self defense seems to arise when a defendent pleading self defense had an honest but objectively unreasonable belief that he was in sufficient danger to justify his actions. This would correspond to a case where a rape defendent had a honest but objectively unreasonable belief that the woman had consented which is not what I was getting at. I was thinking more of cases like for example a man punching another man for insulting his wife. The insult is not legal justification but would usually be considered a mitigating factor.
One argument for punishing date rate cases less harshly is that there is usually less premeditation and premeditated crimes are generally treated more harshly than crimes committed in the heat of passion. Of course this would not apply to date rape cases where there is evidence of premeditation such as the use of date rape drugs.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 11/1/2006 @ 10:29 pmChristoph, it is not rape in Maryland (at least according to this decision) because rape is reserved specifically for the act of penetration without consent. I don’t see what is so unreasonable here, all forms of sexual assault do not have to be called rape.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 11/1/2006 @ 10:35 pmIf you’re arguing on the basis of premeditation, that’s reasonable, James.
If you’re arguing on the basis of whether they kissed / made out or not first (which doesn’t really have much to do with premeditation or not assuming they we’re going on a date anyway) then I don’t think you have a legally or morally defensible provided one recognizes a person’s right to own their own body and decide who does what with it.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 10:35 pmThat’s true, James, if there’s a distinction between rape (penetration) and sexual assault (but without penetration).
However, continuing to have sex with a woman for an extended period of time after she withdraws consent would probably constitute rape as most laws are written. But that could vary in different jurisdictions.
My position is that using permission of one intimacy, now revoked, as justification to continue either that intimacy or new intimacies, as Doc Rampage’s comment appears to leave open, on the basis of your greater strength isn’t a minor assault.
It’s a real nasty one. Or you better tell your daughter not to kiss, pet or massage before marriage because who knows where that could lead or what legal defense that could offer to her attacker?
I say… being sexual with a woman who says she doesn’t want to be sexual with her should be a crime no matter when she makes this decision. Then let juries, prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers, courts, and the Constitution sort out the details.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 10:41 pmChristoph, you have now taken my words out of context six times in order to alter their meaning, and three of those instances were after I pointed out the context to you. Either you have the reading comprehension of a fourth grader or you are deliberately lying in order to win points in your holier-than-thou war.
So I’m going to say it explicitly, not because I think it will stop you from slandering me if my previous statment didn’t; you are obviously a lying troll, but because this kind of slander is genuinely damaging to a man’s reputation and needs to be answered directly, no matter how fabulous it is.
So here it is: The statement that you continue to quote so lovingly does not mean what you say it means. It does not mean that once a woman has allowed a man to kiss her, then it is not rape if he subsequently forces intercourse on her. What is means is that if a man is having intercourse with a woman and she tells him to stop, it is not rape if he doesn’t stop immediately. It *is*, as I said assault, so I am not endorsing this behavior.
I wonder if you will now start quoting the fragment of the above between “once a woman” and the end of the sentence. Given your history on this thread, I won’t be especially surprised.
Doc Rampage (4a07eb) — 11/1/2006 @ 10:45 pmHere is your complete comment (and I quoted your complete comment in my first comment #30 about you at 4:36 p.m. above) with mere bolding.
I disagree with you. I think it’s a major assault and that your opinion is really dangerous and disgusting.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 10:54 pmCristoph, with all due respect: you seem awfully emotionally invested in this debate. What’s the deal? Some personal demons?
The bottom line I was trying to get at: before you argue, DEFINE the terms of the argument. SPECIFY, precisely, what it is your talking about. As I read back over this thread (that you’ve apparently been obsessing over for around 8 hours), I don’t see much agreement on the specifics.
I don’t think anybody here is suggesting that a man (or woman!) has a legal right to keep humping away once a clear “no” has been delivered. Is my assumption wrong? Anyone clearly in favor of that position?
(crickets chirp)
For the record, my own point was simple one: there are some simple legal and practical (and obvious!) problems with the idea that consensual sex can become rape within the span of a second – AFTER INTERCOURSE HAS STARTED.
Cristoph, I haven’t seen you address one substantive point. Just a lot of heated rhetoric. Is there something you want to share, perhaps?
And you clearly don’t understand the concept of “imperfect consent” as a term of law. Look it up. It’s not that complex.
A final point: as curious as I am about your strange emotional obsession with this – I’m especially curious why you repeat “woman” over and over … as if it is the gender that is critical, rather than the act. Since I don’t want to put words in your mouth (no room with all those feet in there!), clarify please: do your rules apply for men, too? If I tell a woman to stop making sweet sweaty love to me and she keeps going for a few seconds – is she going to prison, too? Yes – or – no?
Now, c’mon. Spill the beans. Share your inner demons. Somethin’s goin’ on with you here. I’ll bet its an interesting story!
Professor Blather (c65bfa) — 11/1/2006 @ 11:04 pmCristoph:
I just reread the thread. Now fess up – you’re a first year law student, aren’t you?
Anyone wanna bet? Maybe second year. At a big state school. I’d wager a case of beer. And not the cheap stuff, either.
Professor Blather (c65bfa) — 11/1/2006 @ 11:07 pmClassic strawman, Cristoph. Classic.
Again, define the question. As far as I know, the question is simple: once penetration has already occurred, if a partner withdraws consent – can rape charges arise?
Your strawman of “flirting = mitigation to rape charges” is infantile and tiresome. I changed my mind. You’re a junior undergrad with a pre-law major, aren’t you?
Professor Blather (c65bfa) — 11/1/2006 @ 11:10 pmCristoph, you calling for intellectual honesty, in light of this thread, is painfully funny! Good one. I don’t think you’ve written a single intellectually honest post.
Want intellectual honesty? Then address the actual issues. Not your imaginary boogie-men. A dozen posters have clarifed their positions, and you’re still (dishonestly) attacking straw men.
Professor Blather (c65bfa) — 11/1/2006 @ 11:13 pmBlather, I’ll ignore your ad hominem attack or your question about my personal take on this, including seeing the sometimes life-destroying trauma inflicted upon women who have been raped and watching their lives crumble. You said:
Doc Rampage said:
I said:
This is a clear and substantial point.
Further, you say:
In comment #69, I say:
Something which Patterico says:
here.
You’re dishonest, lazy, and an asshole.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 11:17 pmWonderful strawman!
Another clumsy but pretty little strawman!
Yet another strawman. I’ve read the whole thread, Chomsky. Not one person is even discussing sex for “an extended period of time.” Pretty much this entire debate – a debate you seem truly to have an unhealthy obsession towards – has been in your own head.
Let me close with a little classic Cristoph. See if you catch the paradox, son:
C’mon. Admit it. That kind of hypocrisy on your part is funny!
Now take some advice, kid: put down your Con Law book (I *knew* I was right about that!), forget your childhood traumas, and turn the computer off.
You need some help, son. And that’s some good advice. Turn the shiny box off and go to bed. Tomorrow’s a school day.
Or maybe you can obsess for another 8 hours and find some more folks to argue with (well, in your case, to display rank dishonesty in twisting their arguments so that you can pretend to rebut them …).
Whatever. Enjoy. But just so I can check in the morning — now I have two questions: 1) I was right about the first year law thing, wasn’t I? and 2) You’re, well, a virgin, aren’t you?
Remember: answer honestly. 😉
Professor Blather (c65bfa) — 11/1/2006 @ 11:29 pmAs far as your question about why the passion, if laws about whether it’s legal to rape women in this circumstance who withdraw consent or whether it’s just a “minor assault” and “arguably” criminal as Doc Rampage says is a not worthy passion, then I just don’t know what is, dude.
In my city yesterday, we had a young woman in her 20s come forward and allege that a few members of our minor league professional hockey team sexually assaulted her in a hotel I go to fairly often (they have a restaurant and a Karaoke bar).
She wasn’t a stripper, she’s a local university student, and she was allegedly held overnight, not allowed to leave, and kicked out in the morning where she promptly walked a few blocks to the police station.
I have no difficulty imagining a scenario where maybe she wanted to be sexual with one or more than one of the guys because she went willfully into a hotel room… but maybe she got scared or changed her mind and didn’t want to anymore.
Maybe they were drunk and disrespected her or did things that she didn’t want to do. Maybe she wanted to consent to some sexual activity, but then changed her mind, but couldn’t leave for a long time.
Laws on these things are important and affect real people. That is the source of my passion, Blather, although I really think you’re too much of an asshole to understand that.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/1/2006 @ 11:34 pmHatchets Under the Earth
James B. Shearer, once again I disagree with most things that come out of your mind, but you argued the point honorably enough.
Doc Rampage, I believe you didn’t read where I started the conversation by quoting you in your entirety and I acknowledge too that you say that not ceasing sexual activity upon request is “wrong”.
The question is how wrong?
I believe it’s very wrong and you’re not even sure it is criminal… if so, you think it is minor.
The problem is that hard cases make bad law.
You can’t look at one case and make a law around its specific circumstances. Because human behaviour is variable, you inevitibly end up applying laws to circumstances you didn’t anticipate.
Blather calls the example I give:
No, this is eminently imaginable.
As I said, I’ve at least once had a woman ask me to cease sexual intercourse because of pain and I didn’t particularly want to.
I did, however, and we’re great friends over a decade later and she still trusts me enough to try to set me up with her friends on a regular basis. She does this whether I want her to or not or whether I’m even in a relationship.
Moving on, I quoted news of a local university girl who, quite possibly, initiated sexual contact willingly enough, but now claims she was held captive for a few hours and sexually assaulted not more than a couple miles from where I live. At least a 25% chance I’ve seen her before.
A law principled or worded anything like thus:
would not seem to provide her a whole lot of perfection.
If you’re saying that perhaps there should be a different law or penalty for this, I’m open to the idea (I don’t think it’s necessary though… I think existing well-worded sexual assault law in most jurisdictions such as California or my country of Canada is adequate), but when examples like the ones I’ve given really do occur, your comment, worded the way you did, comes across as a bad legal idea.
You did say it’s wrong so I invite you to consider other cases, not just this one, that could potentially occur and then ask yourself if maybe it is a serious crime after all?
Then, if a prosecutor/judge/jury think it’s trivial, they could always dismiss it (or plea it out). However, it just won’t always be trivial, sometimes it’ll be awful, and the law must take that into consideration.
Those are my two cents.
Blather, you called me a virgin and discovered my secret shame. I don’t think I can forgive you.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/2/2006 @ 3:02 amTypo:
*would not seem to provide her a whole not of protection.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/2/2006 @ 3:04 amI’ll grant that any decent human being would stop if a woman changed her mind halfway. I will say that what you describe IS Rape, ethically and morally. I do have one question:
At what point does a woman have to accept some share of responsibility for the act of mating? At what point does she become obligated to say to herself, “Well this sucks, but I chose it.”?
Because, frankly, the assumptions I hear underlying this debate come awfully close to Andrea Dworkins’s old assertion that women are so culturally damaged that they CANNOT give real assent to heterosexual sex.
C. S. P. Schofield (c1cf21) — 11/2/2006 @ 7:06 amOf course women can give consent to real sex. I quite enjoy it when women consent to real sex, which isn’t exactly rare. My experience is that women love sex greatly. I just don’t see where that comes into it.
I have no moral or ethical problem with premarital sex. Women shouldn’t be able to get away with using the rape laws as a club to get back at a man, for an unfair advantage in divorce procedings, or for their own psychological sick games. I have seen some sick women so I believe that anything is possible. The responsibility for preventing this rests with women themselves, prosecutors, judges, juries. They do a good job for the most part I think. That’s what the whole “reasonable doubt” thing is about.
A very important concept.
I just see it that if someone says, “Stop, I want to stop,” and, after clarifying what she means, because, in some circumstances, it might actually take a second because does she mean stop everything or are you doing it wrong?
Anyway, once this is determined, a guy’s gotta stop. Might take a second and if I’m on a jury I’ll never convict a man because it took him “5-10 seconds” to stop.
That’s nuts.
But using my above example, if it takes him 28-minutes, that bastard’s going to jail.
Christoph (9824e6) — 11/2/2006 @ 9:04 amChristoph, I was talking about continuing for a few seconds after the woman said stop, and the only thing I said about it is that this behavior should not be classified as rape but as a relatively minor assault. You repeatedly pretended that there are people on this thread arguing that consent to heavy petting “justifies” rape or that initial consent “justifies” continuing for a half hour after the woman withdraws consent, and you repeatedly quoted me out of context to prove that there are people on the thread who have argued that point. You are a slandering liar.
I never said that the consent justifies anything that the woman did not consent to, I only observed that it significantly changes the context of the act.
So lay your cards on the table. Are you seriously suggesting that if you are on top of a woman going at it and she says, “I changed my mind, I don’t want to do this.” and you continue for a few more strokes before your higher mental functions can get control, that you should be punished for this minor lapse the same as a man who stalks and rapes a stranger?
If you say yes, then you are an absolutist prick. If you say no, then shut the fuck up; all you have is a minor quible on nomenclature and terms of opprobrium.
Doc Rampage (4a07eb) — 11/2/2006 @ 11:58 amI’d say that about sums it up! Actually, both of the above is closer to the truth. Yes, he’s an absolutist prick – and yes the entire thread has been semantic quibbling.
From the start, he was only arguing with himself. Every poster made it abundantly clear that his various strawmen (i.e. “the 28-minute humping from Mr. Long Dong Silver”) were NOT what they were talking about. When Cristoph the Clueless kept trying to insert words into other posters’ mouths (and his own foot into his own mouth), he was repeatedly corrected and all comments were clarified.
And now better than 24 hours later he’s still at it. I haven’t seen a debater this dishonest since Mondale in ’84. About the time Cristoph was born, I’d guess.
Give it up, Doc. I suspect the kid has a few … issues. Involving women. Either that, or he’s just another self-important first year law student who’s in for a shock when he graduates.
Amusing though, no? 🙂
Professor Blather (c65bfa) — 11/2/2006 @ 1:11 pmPenetrating a woman without consent is an act of commission, failure to withdraw (when consent is withdrawn) is an act of omission. The law often treats acts of omission differently than acts of commision, I don’t see what’s so appalling about doing so in this case.
Suppose a drunken man passes out in the middle of consensual coitus and the woman is not strong enough to extricate herself. This is an unfortunate and potentially dangerous situation, but I am not convinced anything criminal has occurred.
James B. Shearer (fc887e) — 11/2/2006 @ 1:18 pmIf a grocery store owner invites a person into the store to “take anything” they want…free…”it’s yours”, and that person fills a couple of grocery bags then walks out the door….goes home, cooks up a nice meal with the groceries, sits down to eat……..but before taking a bite the store owner shows up at his door and says…”I take it back”…but the person eats the food anyway…….is that person a theif?
senorlechero (360f45) — 11/3/2006 @ 9:35 pmNo, but in your example he had the store owner’s permission until after the act was completed. No one is suggesting a woman can have sex with you, decide hours later that she shouldn’t have, and retroactively declare it a rape. A better example would be a store owner who invites you to take anything you want, then thinks better of it while you’re still loading up your grocery cart in his store, and says “sorry, hate to be a Native American giver but I can’t let you do this.” If you take the goods anyway, you are indeed a thief.
Xrlq (a6076b) — 11/4/2006 @ 6:38 amXriq,
No one in this thread – yet – is suggesting that a woman can retroactively decide that sex with you was Rape. Go onto a feminist-infested college campus and you will find that the idea is by no means as exotic as you seem to think. There have been several well publicized cases that certainly flirted with the idea, which is why this discussion gives me the leaping fantods.
If you go to a party, get drunk, and collide your car into several people, and decide afterwards that you didn’t want to do that, society will call you a dangerous idiot. If a young woman gets drunk, strips, and dances the horizontal mambo with several young men – HAVING BEEN ASKED – Feminist doctrine is that she gets to decide later that she was raped, and nobody will dare call her a little fool
I’m sorry. The longer I think about this the more I feel that it is one of those cases where the Law cannot try to enforce what is obviously right, because of the myriad possibilities for abuse. Is it Rape if you don’t pull out when the woman changes her mind halfway? Absolutely….unless she set you up. Trying to embody that in law is simply a nightmare. As I suggested before, there has to come a time when a woman accepts the consequences of her decision to have sex, even if those consequences suck.
Now if you wanted to establish that a woman had an inalienable right to kick the man in the balls after the act was over, if she didn’t like the performance, THAT I could work with……
Damnit, a Rape charge is too serious if the man is simply more of a boor than the woman anticipated. If they are such delicate flowers that they have to be protected from their decisions, why are they allowed to vote and own property?
C. S. P. Schofield (c1cf21) — 11/4/2006 @ 7:32 amXrlg…….the “act” would not be completed until the meal was eaten.
CPS….you said “Is it Rape if you don’t pull out when the woman changes her mind halfway? Absolutely” Are you saying that intercourse is only intercourse if the man ejaculates in the woman? Sex has already taken place at the “half way” point.
when the woman has already agreed to sex, then says “stop”….does the man have 1/2 second to respond? 5 seconds? 1 minute? At what point does it become rape?
What if the woman changed her mind at the exact moment a man was beginning to ejaculate? Rape?
What if the woman changed her mind but was “afraid” to say stop……afterall, many victims are afraid to stop their victimizers.
I could go on and on with possibilities, but I’m afraid you have your mind made up…”absolutely”. But based upon what? PC mindset.
Common sense and a minimal knowledge of human relations dictates that consent to have sex is just that…….consent to have sex. It can only become rape when the woman is “forced to continue”. I haven’t seen anything that indicates force being considered in this discussion.
senorlechero (360f45) — 11/4/2006 @ 8:40 amXrlg…I should have said “in my scenario” the act would not be completed until the meal was eaten. The object was a free meal…..not carrying the groceries out of the store.
senorlechero (360f45) — 11/4/2006 @ 8:43 amThere is a difference between rape and bad sex. Society has an obligation to protect the weak against the former, but not the latter.
New York was one of several states that used to require corroborating evidence for rape convictions (witnesses or severe brusing/broken bones). And there was some sense to that. Witness the Duke fiasco.
As for the instant discussion, here’s the question: If a woman does not defend her virtue, why should it become the responsibility of the state?
Norman Rogers (7abc36) — 11/5/2006 @ 4:44 pm