Sex: It's a commitment.

[Halx]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...584786,00.html

If a woman consents to having sex with a man but then during intercourse says no, and the man continues, is it rape?

The answer depends on where you live. The highest courts of seven states, including Connecticut and Kansas, have ruled that a woman may withdraw her consent at any time, and if the man doesn't stop, he is committing rape. Illinois has become the first state to pass legislation giving a woman that right to change her mind. But in Maryland--as well as in North Carolina--when a woman says yes, she can't take it back once sex has begun--or, at least, she can't call the act rape.

Ok, the point of my post is not about whether you think it's rape if the woman says yes and then says no during the sex. The point is the way life is being broken down into various ways to go to jail. The way we coddle various social groups by giving them as much power over a situation as possible, allowing them to cry foul if someone so much as blinks in their presence is disturbing. Soon we'll be able to have dinner guests arrested for insulting our cooking.

I wonder when and if people will get a grip.

[streak_56]

I am going to say that I'm in the air on this topic. On one hand, yes a woman has the right to say no no matter what action is taking place. For all we know the guy could've intially said that he's using a condom and then doesn't use one, so she says yes but then says no for that reason. That to me would be an acceptable use of the law.

And on the other hand, being a guy, I know how hard it is to stop in the middle of the "act." We like sex and it just feels good to finish. And stopping in the middle just leaves you with our good ole friend blue balls. It's just how we're made.

I agree with you Halx, that it is giving someone a little bit of power and being a little power hungry and that it could explode into something ridiculous. People lose their grip on reality when they want something (more power) and then lose a sense of morale belief or responsibility. Like in my example, the woman should've had a condom on hand "just in case."

But to me, it's both parties should be at fault. One for the guy not being able to stop. And two for her changing her mind, it's misleading and it's wrong. Unfortunately only one of those options are punishable by law. But sex is such a diverse action. It's focused on the individual rights instead of the social acceptability.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

"People" have shown no sign of getting a grip. We seem to be back-sliding.
I worry about "us", with the enphasis on the "", yes?

[serlindsipity]

i fear this will be necessary in some situations and in others it will be improperly used against the guy. I forsee some poor guy getting screwed and put in jail by a vindicitive girl just cuz she knew the law and he didnt.

However, the condomn situation I can agree with.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Halx

The point is the way life is being broken down into various ways to go to jail. The way we coddle various social groups by giving them as much power over a situation as possible, allowing them to cry foul if someone so much as blinks in their presence is disturbing. Soon we'll be able to have dinner guests arrested for insulting our cooking.

I wonder when and if people will get a grip.

I disagree that allowing someone to decide not to have sex anymore amounts to coddling. It could be argued that men have generally had the most power in most any given sexual situation since the beginning of time; that's why rape is illegal. I don't think that giving people (generally women) a little more protection/power in matters of intercourse is necessarily a bad thing.

Having sex against your will is a far cry from having your cooking insulted and comparing the two is absurd.

Also, for the record, having diverse paths to incarceration is nothing new. Laws break down life into various ways to go to jail, and they've been around a lot longer than your ability to observe legal and sociological phenomena.

[The_Jazz]

Hal, exactly what do you think is new here? It is something new to American society specifically (I'd argue not)? Is it something new to Western Civilization (again no)?

As I read it, your argument is a different version of the "backlash" against "frivolous lawsuits" that seems to pop up about every 3 months on the board. To speak specifically to the rape charge, I think that it's to take into account circumstances where guys pressure women into sex through whatever means (drink, drugs, power, etc), and the woman momentarily caves to the pressure only to realize a few minutes later that it's a mistake. It's a precarious situation, but sexual abuse takes a myriad of forms. Ask some of the women on this board.

[Charlatan]

I am in agreement with Jazz and Filth on this and see no problem with a) understanding that a woman can change her mind and b) giving her some legal backing when she does.

As for suggesting that someone will abuse this power... I see this a separate issue.

[Toaster126]

Hurm, I always just assumed that at any point if someone told you to stop and you didn't, you were committing rape.

[Sharon]

There is always a flip side. While I was out clubbing one night about six months ago, I saw a friend of mine leave with a very cute Irish redhead. The next day, I sent him a text message teasing him about getting lucky, and he responded with a laugh and a "kind of", as she'd given him a blowjob instead of full sex.

A week later, police showed up at his door and arrested him for sexual assault. He spent the night in a jail cell, wask questioned in the early hours of the morning, and then bailed. He's still waiting to see if he'll be charged (he's been rebailed twice).

As a woman, I'm glad that there is protection against rape and sexual assault, but it's scary how some women (a minority) use that power to do seriously fucked-up things for no apparent reason. I am presuming that my friend is innocent, to be fair, and we still don't know if he will be charged. But the experience certainly shook him up, and he's not so much as approached a girl since. I don't think that's very fair on him at all.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by Toaster126

Hurm, I always just assumed that at any point if someone told you to stop and you didn't, you were committing rape.

Agreed. In a boxing ring, if I keep whaling on my opponent after his manager has thrown in the towel, it's assault. How is this different?

Women already have plenty of power to jerk men around with sex. This doesn't significantly shift the balance.

[Sharon]

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Women already have plenty of power to jerk men around with sex. This doesn't significantly shift the balance.

But it does - it changes the level of the consequences. Giving a guy blue balls, or manipulating him emotionally is one thing... putting him in jail or giving him a criminal record (and in the UK that means the sex offenders' register which will make it harder for you to get a job, teach, etc) is something completely different.

[The_Jazz]

Originally Posted by Sharon

But it does - it changes the level of the consequences. Giving a guy blue balls, or manipulating him emotionally is one thing... putting him in jail or giving him a criminal record (and in the UK that means the sex offenders' register which will make it harder for you to get a job, teach, etc) is something completely different.

Shotgun weddings anyone?

Seriously, every legal system is open to abuse. It's human nature, and it's why no culture has never perfected anything.

[ratbastid]

Originally Posted by Sharon

But it does - it changes the level of the consequences. Giving a guy blue balls, or manipulating him emotionally is one thing... putting him in jail or giving him a criminal record (and in the UK that means the sex offenders' register which will make it harder for you to get a job, teach, etc) is something completely different.

My point is, women already can (and do) do that. This new law doesn't make that any harder or easier, and it makes black-and-white something that may have formerly been a gray area for some people.

[KnifeMissile]

Originally Posted by Halx

Ok, the point of my post is not about whether you think it's rape if the woman says yes and then says no during the sex. The point is the way life is being broken down into various ways to go to jail. The way we coddle various social groups by giving them as much power over a situation as possible, allowing them to cry foul if someone so much as blinks in their presence is disturbing. Soon we'll be able to have dinner guests arrested for insulting our cooking.

I wonder when and if people will get a grip.

I do wish you'd be a little more explicit with your post. Despite all the other posts in this thread (which suggests that they understood you), I can't make heads or tails of yours. Specifically, I don't understand what your position is. You say your point is "not about whether you think it's rape if the woman says yes and then says no during the sex," but then you say things that sound like they are questioning this very premise. It, indeed, sounds like your is about whether withdrawing consent during sex is rape.

So, perhaps you can answer this simple qustion and it may clear things up for me. In regards to rape and consent, what would be an example of "people getting a grip?"

Originally Posted by Sharon

But it does - it changes the level of the consequences. Giving a guy blue balls, or manipulating him emotionally is one thing... putting him in jail or giving him a criminal record (and in the UK that means the sex offenders' register which will make it harder for you to get a job, teach, etc) is something completely different.

The sex offender's register is one thing but falsely accusing someone of a crime is not unique to rape. I can report to the authorities that I witnessed you robbing me. The shit only falls on me when there's an investigation that shows no evidence of such an act...

[Halx]

Getting a grip would mean that people no longer felt the need to create laws for every possible protection they could offer to someone. This goes for inane lawsuits as well. At some point, people have to take responsibility for their actions. The law proposed in the article is asking to be abused. In fact it is so litigious, that more money will be spent in the courts determining whether a law was broken than there will be spent for sexual education, which in my opinion would reduce the number of cases to begin with.

[The_Jazz]

There is no such thing as "inane" lawsuits. There are only fraudulent suits where the claimant creates an injury (bodily, property or otherwise) and legitimate suits where there are actual injuries. You're also confusing criminal and civil law which are two very different things. Litigation has absolutely nothing to do with criminal actions.

[abaya]

Originally Posted by Halx

sexual education, which in my opinion would reduce the number of cases to begin with.

Do you mean to say that you think sexual education would reduce the number of rape cases? I highly doubt it. Sexual education has nothing to do with a man's motive to rape a woman, nor does it have to do with a woman making a false accusation of rape. I don't get your point.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Halx

Getting a grip would mean that people no longer felt the need to create laws for every possible protection they could offer to someone. This goes for inane lawsuits as well. At some point, people have to take responsibility for their actions. The law proposed in the article is asking to be abused. In fact it is so litigious, that more money will be spent in the courts determining whether a law was broken than there will be spent for sexual education, which in my opinion would reduce the number of cases to begin with.

Do you think rape should be illegal? As far as I can tell, it seems like you think "it was in before she said no" should be a valid defense in a rape trial.

[Gilda]

It seems to me to be a clarification of an issue that was a former gray area for some, and when it comes to something with serious consequences such as those that come with rape, both parties having a clear understanding about exactly does and doesn't constitute rape is something that can protect both. A man who goes into a sexual encounter knowing that the woman has the right to withdraw consent at any time is less likely to be confused regarding what he is and isn't entitled to do later on if it does happen. At the same time, the woman's "no" is given a little more power.

Clearing up a gray area in something like this is something that is almost entirely a positive for both sexes.

[Glory's Sun]

Originally Posted by filtherton

Do you think rape should be illegal? As far as I can tell, it seems like you think "it was in before she said no" should be a valid defense in a rape trial.

It seems to me that this would be a very valid defense in a trial. You know that the defense lawyers would say something similar to this as it would be hard to tell when the actual "rape" occured considering there was already consentual penetration.

[KnifeMissile]

Originally Posted by Halx

Getting a grip would mean that people no longer felt the need to create laws for every possible protection they could offer to someone. This goes for inane lawsuits as well. At some point, people have to take responsibility for their actions. The law proposed in the article is asking to be abused. In fact it is so litigious, that more money will be spent in the courts determining whether a law was broken than there will be spent for sexual education, which in my opinion would reduce the number of cases to begin with.

While I understand what you're saying in the abstract, I still don't understand how it applies to the example you've brought up in this thread. In the case of withdrawing consent during sex, what would be "taking responsibility?" Forcing yourself to go through with it? She let me in so I have a right to cum?

[Halx]

Education will make a girl think twice before allowing a man to have sex with her if she's not sure. The more people know about a situation before they get into it, the less likely they will be to back out of it once they are there.

This law essentially "creates" rape. It also creates fear, uncertainty and is an assault on pre-marital sex. Rape to me, is saying "no" from the start and attempting to physically resist sexual contact. Everything else is a consequence of poor judgement for which people need to "get a grip" on.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by guccilvr

It seems to me that this would be a very valid defense in a trial. You know that the defense lawyers would say something similar to this as it would be hard to tell when the actual "rape" occured considering there was already consentual penetration.

I would hope that it would be pretty obvious that the rape occurred in the interval of time after the party in question withdrew their consent and before the intercourse ended. In any case, the laws in question would seem to clarify this point.

[Glory's Sun]

so if you're having sex with a woman, and then 5 minutes into the session she says no and you push one more time before pulling out it's rape? How about if you were cumming at the exact moment she said no?? Unless the woman has a stopwatch and can say exactly when she said no then I feel that it would be extremely difficult to determine when the actual rape began. In some cases, it would certainly be easy.. but IMO in most it would not be.

I'm in agreement with Hal that this creates rape.

[Gilda]

The idea that rape requires physical resistance on the part of the victim has been discarded pretty much everywhere in the US. Once she says "No," regardless of what went before, and regardless of how much she resists physically, if he proceeds, he's raping her.

[Halx]

I ask how one can possibly be raped without physical struggle, not considering coersion, disability, inability to move or threat.

All I can possibly imagine is a fully capable girl under no duress passively allowing a dude to take her clothes off and fuck her while she just lays there, offering no resistance except for "No."

Sounds rotten. I need more.

[The_Jazz]

The scenario that you're describing happened to a good friend of mine in college about 15 years ago. One night we were all out partying and he (a sophomore) hooked up with a girl (a junior) that had had the hots for him for several weeks. They were both really hammered when they left the bar and went back to her place. Sex ensued. The next day, she decided that she never intended to have sex with him and only consented because she was so drunk.

This became a huge arguement on campus, as you can probably imagine. He was basically condemned without any sort of trial since the police refused to prosecute once they got his version of the story (which was that he regretted it and never had any intention of sleeping with her). It went before the student judicial committee eventually, and they claimed assault charges against each other. It was one of the biggest wastes of time I've ever seen.

That said, I think the judicial system worked pretty well in this case, although the student society failed pretty miserably. She never objected during intercourse and only expressed doubts afterwards. He was an asshole and didn't talk to her after the fact which was just fuel for the fire. However, the local prosecutor was ready to press charges until he interviewed some of us that were with the two at the bar beforehand and learned that my friend really wasn't the aggressor in the situation.

That example aside, I think that anytime you're having sex with someone for the first time, you need to be thinking about more than just yourself. If you (as the man) have pressured her into sex, you need to be ready if she objects. If she does, and you go ahead and finish, you're a rapist in my mind. Let's not forget that this isn't happening in a vacuum and that there are circumstances that are going to lead up to any rape accusations. Those circumstances are what will or will not give credibility to the charges.

[abaya]

Originally Posted by Halx

Education will make a girl think twice before allowing a man to have sex with her if she's not sure. The more people know about a situation before they get into it, the less likely they will be to back out of it once they are there.

This law essentially "creates" rape. It also creates fear, uncertainty and is an assault on pre-marital sex. Rape to me, is saying "no" from the start and attempting to physically resist sexual contact. Everything else is a consequence of poor judgement for which people need to "get a grip" on.

I'm going to have to get personal here, because it's the only way I see this issue. I agree with you, Halx, in terms of my own experience, and ONLY my experience... no one else's applies here. In my eyes, I was at least partly responsible for blacking out and losing my virginity to a stranger who picked me up off of Bourbon Street in New Orleans. A stranger whom I never, EVER in my sober and right mind would have given assent to... I'd been waiting for marriage, up to 24 years of age. This was NOT how I (or anyone, I believe) wanted to remember having sex the first time.

Does that make it rape? I've never been able to figure it out. Maybe you folks have some insight for me, with all your opinions on the matter. I'm sure I'm not the only woman on the board with a similar story.

I had taken a trip down to New Orleans for waterski camp (as a grad student) and allowed 3 previously-unknown college guys and girls to ride down in my car with me from PA to save money. I knew that was a mistake within 10 minutes of being in the car with them... they were tossing back Colt 45's while driving and throwing glass bottles at highway signs... but I went along with it (again, my responsibility for not standing up to them, in my own car).

After 24 hours of driving, we were on Bourbon Street and having a good time, and I was drinking more than I ever had before. My mistake, which I freely admit, was in drinking too much with people whom I did not know, and had NO reason to trust to take care of me (as opposed to the way my friends and I take care of each other when drinking). I suppose I thought they would watch out for me. Would you say that I should have "gotten a grip?" Maybe so, given what I had just observed on our 24 hour road trip. Again, an issue of personal responsibility vs. my naivete in believing that humans would take care of each other.

When I came to the next morning, the last thing on my mind was going after the guy for rape, since I was quite traumatized by what I woke up to (being naked in the shower with a man, when I had never done anything like that before in my life). The only means by which I gave consent was by being blacked out, and thus not having any means of consent or dissent. What would a judge say? Apparently, I was all for it when I was drunk... so he told me.

I got the guy's name and address, we e-mailed about what happened, and he even mailed me my camera and forgotten beads back. But I never took it to court. Why? I did feel that it was at least partly my responsibility, what happened... especially the getting drunk part. But my point to Halx earlier was that sex education had nothing to do with it. I was blacked out and had absolutely no memory or will to do (or not do) anything. It wouldn't have mattered if I was Dr. Ruth at that point, in terms of "sex ed." It wouldn't have even mattered if I did say "NO!", because I don't remember any part of the act, or what either of us did to get there. It happened because of a bad situation that I put myself in, and someone took advantage of it. I've never really known who to blame, so I haven't blamed anyone.

Does that mean I was responsible enough to "get a grip," or does it mean that I was a victim? Or both? Can anyone really assign that label to me, or anyone who went through something like that?

[Gilda]

Originally Posted by Halx

I ask how one can possibly be raped without physical struggle,

You answer this yourself:

not considering coersion, disability, inability to move or threat.

I would add incapacity, such as being unconscious, or fear of being harmed if she resists physically to that list.

All I can possibly imagine is a fully capable girl under no duress passively allowing a dude to take her clothes off and fuck her while she just lays there, offering no resistance except for "No."

Sounds rotten. I need more.

You need more than the girl saying "no"? It seems a simple equation to me. If she says "no", he doesn't have consent. If he has sex without consent, that's rape. Physical resistance is a good indicator of lack of consent, sure, but so is saying "no".

[KnifeMissile]

My sympathies to you, abaya.


Here are some scenarios to give a little context:

I have sex with a child (or, really, anyone under 18). They consented so it can't be rape, right?

I drug a girl and then have sex with her. She didn't say no so it's not rape, right?

I find a girl who's near unconcious from taking something (maybe it was extasy, maybe it was crack), I'm not sure. I have sex with her and she doesn't say no.

What do these three scenarios have in common? Are any of them an example of rape? One thing they have in common is that the girl never said no...

[StanT]

I think we need to separate the moral viewpoint from the legal one in this circumstance.

From a moral perspective, no means no, every time under every circumstance.

The legal perspective is more problematic. The circumstances in question will nearly always be a question of "he said / she said", creating a dilemma in enforcement. I see a point in having a law on the books to make a point, but I'd be reluctant to use it.

[Halx]

Gilda, my point is that it's fairly straightforward what rape is in those situations. If the female doesn't object, yet is under duress or incapacitated (that was the word I was looking for) in any way, then it can be rape. But to give a guy clear entry and then slam the door shut while his dick is still inside is nothing but a device. I agree that it can "turn into" rape by suddenly becoming unwelcomely aggressive, but if a girl is not under any duress, she needs to make a physical effort to resist the man.

To sum it up, the woman needs to do her part in resisting if she is able. A single word might be appropriate when it comes to BDSM and role playing, but when it comes to just plain consentual sex, the thought that it can turn to rape without an exclamation is sad.

[Gilda]

Originally Posted by Halx

Gilda, my point is that it's fairly straightforward what rape is in those situations. If the female doesn't object, yet is under duress or incapacitated (that was the word I was looking for) in any way, then it can be rape. But to give a guy clear entry and then slam the door shut while his dick is still inside is nothing but a device. I agree that it can "turn into" rape by suddenly becoming unwelcomely aggressive, but if a girl is not under any duress, she needs to make a physical effort to resist the man.

I disagree, for reasons stated above.

To sum it up, the woman needs to do her part in resisting if she is able. A single word might be appropriate when it comes to BDSM and role playing, but when it comes to just plain consentual sex, the thought that it can turn to rape without an exclamation is sad.

If that exclamation is "No", that should be all that is required to indicate lack of consent.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Halx

Gilda, my point is that it's fairly straightforward what rape is in those situations. If the female doesn't object, yet is under duress or incapacitated (that was the word I was looking for) in any way, then it can be rape. But to give a guy clear entry and then slam the door shut while his dick is still inside is nothing but a device. I agree that it can "turn into" rape by suddenly becoming unwelcomely aggressive, but if a girl is not under any duress, she needs to make a physical effort to resist the man.

It seems like you agree with the spirit of the law, but you're condemning it based solely on a subset of possible scenarios in which it could come to play.

There is no basis in fact for the assertion that this law will only result in men being fucked over by regretful women. In fact, as multiple anecdotes suggest, if a woman felt the need to cry rape she doesn't need this kind of protection to do it.

[KnifeMissile]

Originally Posted by Halx

To sum it up, the woman needs to do her part in resisting if she is able. A single word might be appropriate when it comes to BDSM and role playing, but when it comes to just plain consentual sex, the thought that it can turn to rape without an exclamation is sad.

I don't understand your flippety-floppety attitude. No one, including your linked article, said that rape could happen without an exclamation. Having said that, it can be rape even without an exclamation. If I have you gagged, you can't exclaim anything but rape can still happen.

Rape doesn't come out of dissent. Rape happens without consent. She doesn't have to say no, she just has to not say yes.

Just so we're clear... Suppose she consented to sex but, during the act, she clearly says "no." If he continues to have sex with her against her will, is this rape?

Originally Posted by filtherton

There is no basis in fact for the assertion that this law will only result in men being fucked over by regretful women. In fact, as multiple anecdotes suggest, if a woman felt the need to cry rape she doesn't need this kind of protection to do it.

People get this weird idea all the time. Some people object to maternity leave because they feel women will take advantage of the "free vacation." Free vacation? She has to have a child for that "free vacation," so it's highly unlikely anyone is going to try to "take advantage" of it...

Why would someone accuse you of rape after the fact? Because rape trials are fun? Any accusation of rape is worth an investigation. As filtherton has pointed out, you don't need the right to rescind consent during sex to screw men over with accusations so it hardly aggrevates that issue...

[Halx]

I'm stating that putting a law in the books to define a situation that has already been defined is bad. We already know what rape is, but placing a switch that any female can flip to get her partner in jail is the problem. I'll state again that this is an attack on pre-marital sex.

[KnifeMissile]

Originally Posted by Halx

I'm stating that putting a law in the books to define a situation that has already been defined is bad. We already know what rape is, but placing a switch that any female can flip to get her partner in jail is the problem. I'll state again that this is an attack on pre-marital sex.

It's on the books for clarification so that the situation may be legally unambiguous when it happens.

...and why do you keep bring up "premarital sex?" How is it an attack on premarital sex? Are you suggesting that a husband can't rape his wife?

[Halx]

No, I'm stating that it creates more tension in an already testy area of life.

[Sharon]

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

The sex offender's register is one thing but falsely accusing someone of a crime is not unique to rape. I can report to the authorities that I witnessed you robbing me. The shit only falls on me when there's an investigation that shows no evidence of such an act...

And it's a lot harder to produce evidence when the accusation is sexual. What about my friend who got himself blown by a chick who later claimed it wasn't consensual? In this case it's pretty much all a matter of her-word-against-his, and I'm willing to guess it's going to either come down to character witnesses or a presumption of guilt / innocence kind of thing. There is no evidence to consider, really.

Let it be stated that I am not defending actual rape. Although it was not a question of virginity, I had a similar experience to abaya when I was slipped a date-rape drug and woke up in a strange apartment. It was during the short time I was working as a stripper, so I was pretty pessimistic about my chances of my character standing up to whoever it was, so I didn't even go to the police. I had HIV/STD tests and that was it. I also had no chance to say no... but I had no chance to say yes either. I am aware that this is not entirely what we are discussing so I shall end this thread derailment here.

[filtherton]

Originally Posted by Halx

I'm stating that putting a law in the books to define a situation that has already been defined is bad. We already know what rape is, but placing a switch that any female can flip to get her partner in jail is the problem. I'll state again that this is an attack on pre-marital sex.

As far as i could tell from skimming the article, no one is putting a law on the books. The article mainly concerned interpretations of laws already on the books made by judges. If the situation was already suitably defined legally there would have been no need for them to provide further definition.

I don't understand your problem with the whole "switch" issue. How does this place any more power in the hands of women than rape laws already do? Women, if they so desire, already have a switch to flip to get their partner in jail. I would be willing to bet that the number of women who actually do "flip the switch" is incredibly small, certainly much smaller than the number of women who actually get raped.

This is not an attack on premarital sex. How does it create more tension? Do you sleep with women whom you expect to accuse you of rape?